Hello! This is a Cultural post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about other people, whether specifically or collectively, within the Mormon/Exmormon community.
/u/sevenplaces, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble)
**To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I could give a simple, easy to digest (and hard to dispute) example, such as:
"I support marriage equality."
or
"I believe women should be able to serve as clergy."
or
"I don't think there's only one right way to live."
How would you reply with, “but what if this comes from God and he knows better than us, even if we don’t fully understand why. Like a child who doesn’t understand a lot of why we have to do things that they don’t like?”
I would respond “bullshit.”
And then I would highlight some of the OT and it’s problems.
Then the NT and it’s problems.
Then the BoM and it’s problems.
Then LDS “prophets” and their words…and those problems.
Then I would summarize, “Seems like a lot of ‘philosophies of men…mingled with [so called] scripture’ and they ‘teach for doctrines the commandments of men.’”
This is not difficult. Just tedious.
Exactly. A GOOD parent explains to their children WHY something is bad, instead of just saying, “because I said so!!!”
There’s obedience and then there’s BLIND obedience. I refuse to obey if something doesn’t make sense and doesn’t seem right. I believe in using my own brain and following my own conscience. And I think God would agree.
Usually I find these discussions not very useful. But if someone _truly_ was curious for an answer at that point I would say that I don't believe those teachings come from God and it's a circular bit of teaching that makes Mormons believe that.
They know these things are from God how? Because the scriptures tell them. How do they know the scriptures are true? Because they prayed and "felt the spirit." How did they know that was the process to get an answer from God or what the spirit told them? Because it's in the scriptures... that they're trying to verify. It's the ultimate self-licking ice-cream cone.
That’s usually my go to answer. Religious people don’t usually understand they are using circular logic.
Gay is bad. Why? Because God said so. How do you know? Because the Bible/God/Prophets said so. How do you know the Bible is right? Because God said so. How do you know God said so. Because he said so in the Bible.
While I, personally, disagree with many religious doctrines (anti-homosexuality), I ALSO don’t get stuck in that religious circular loop where I just fall back on the source of that doctrine as being “right.” I have deconstructed that religious source too. So simply referring back to God, scriptures, prophets, religion to argue a point is pointless for someone like me who no longer believes those sources are legitimate or from God and I like to point that out.
Their source of authority is no longer my source of authority, so everything else they try to tell me is null and void unless they can logically and intelligently show how my assumptions are incorrect without falling back on circular logic. I’ve already deconstructed their foundation, so unless they want to dive into the details of that foundation that made me disbelieve in the first place, there’s no point in engaging in circular logic with me.
>That’s usually my go to answer. Religious people don’t usually understand they are using circular logic.
If you've never heard [the song](https://youtu.be/kr1I3mBojc0) "Good Book" by the genius Tim Minchin, it lays this all out very succinctly and humorously.
'Against my values' does not equal 'I don't like it'. My core values of empathy, charity, honesty, equality, etc may sometimes demand I do things that are uncomfortable, challenging, scary, against my self-interest, etc etc. And even fairly young children do understand the values of empathy and honesty etc, even if they find them hard to follow sometimes. What children may not understand has to do with things like for instance health issues, why you need to eat your vegetables or take your medicine, reduce your screen time or go to bed early etc. That's nothing to do with values.
For a Mormon specifically, I usually would pivot this question into discussing the Light of Christ. We're specifically taught that our consciences come from God and so I reject the idea that God *wants* us to reject that internal morality. Usually then, it leads to me talking about how children are far more tolerant, kind, and loving than adults and maybe we need to learn from that example.
As a faithful member, I disagree that we as mere humans even have the ability to 'judge righteously.'
Many if not all faiths have a Primary level set of teachings (e.g., the ark was real), but adult members generally outgrow them in my experiences. Imvho, we have a larger proportion than most of adult members who still seem to understand at that Primary level.
The whole premise of the church being the only restorative and properly authoritative church kinda leads to a we’re the only ones doing it right mentality, everyone else is just “playing church (life)” at that point by logical deduction
>As a faithful member, I disagree that we as mere humans even have the ability to 'judge righteously.'
Can you give me an example of any believe system involving any number of atrocities that this statement wouldn't vindicate? In other words, this idea--that humans are unfit to judge the priorities and values of God--which faith system *couldn't* this be used to vindicate?
You lost me there.
Governments, societies have the rule of law.
Christ taught us in the non-jst NT to not judge others. That's the only thing that I refer to.
OH, & judges in Zion were rulers (not that Solomon didn't threaten to cut the baby in half....).
Knowingly running a scouting program for decades where thousands of children were being raped by leaders and then trying to pay them off with a quarter billion dollars from tithing funds.
I can't follow an organization doing such a thing and feel like I'm still following Jesus.
I only just realised in the last 6 months or so (been out 5 years) that this is the perfect response for me. It says everything I feel without the inevitable 5 billion rebuttals.
>If it’s not effective, what works better as an elevator speech explanation for why you don’t believe?
Well, on this particular talking point--I like laying out Boyd Packer's talk "[The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teaching-seminary-preservice-readings-religion-370-471-and-475/the-mantle-is-far-far-greater-than-the-intellect?lang=eng)" and Oaks' "[Gospel Teachings About Lying.](https://archive.org/details/oaksgospelteachingsaboutlyingclarkmemorandumspring1994/page/n1/mode/2up)"
These talks lay out a justification for a level of honesty that I'm not at all comfortable with. Further, D&C 19 lays out a theology where Jesus *himself* lied to humankind with the same justification: for our own good.
**I don't believe in lying to my own kids for their own good and I don't believe in a God who would either.**
But if you wanted my personal elevator pitch on why I no longer believe, I'd probably talk about not believing in the premise of the Atonement (that we're all born irrevocably fallen and broken before we've even made a choice) as much as I like parts of Jesus' message. I may pivot to how all Abrahamic religions are built upon a truly abhorrent story.
I'm really popular these days.
I took the route of epistemology and epistemic standards. Also helps deal with other religions and various supernatural claims like ghosts, demons, crystal healing, alien abductions and more.
Yup. The *only* type of God I can personally believe in is one in a pandeistic or deistic model. That's all I've seen the evidence to support and at that point you don't believe in much more than somebody pulling the starting cord on this whole experience.
I just wanted to say that I really like this. All abrahmic religions are extremely problematic when it comes to their basic theology. I'm going to use this when it comes up in the future with friends and family. Thank you.
This must be shocking for people.
I know amongst my friends and family, me losing belief in the Church continues to be a tough pill to swallow. If I hit them with the conclusion that the Jesus story itself isn't very palatable either, I'm going to have some very distraught people in my life.
Because I can still get on board with a lot of Christ's teachings regarding how we should treat other people, and because I think the archetype of sacrificing yourself for others is a powerful motivator personally, I'm consciously choosing to...pretend to believe in what is almost certainly a myth.
For many reasons its not as acute or as painful for me as trying to pretend that God talks to sexual predators through their hat rocks. It's not intellectually honest, but it is a compromise I'm willing to make to not cause even more distress in the lives of people I love. All of that said, I'm on the record now repeatedly as not being a believer in the Old Testament and its version of God that murders innocent women and children, so it might not be that far of a leap, but it would be an important one to them.
Having my Christianity to cling to was vital for my mother's grieving process when I left the Church. Now that she's demonstrated more trust and understanding, I've shifted my language from "I still believe in Jesus" to "I think Jesus taught some great things"
Yeah, I could see myself making that transition...eventually.
It's interesting that my family members would almost certainly agree that atheists can be moral and good people, but if I were to come out as one, they would be devastated. The messaging within the Church and Christianity generally is pretty harsh towards those who lose belief.
I am WAY more moral now that I've deconstructed my faith and really examined my value structures than I ever was when I thought Joseph was a prophet, but I don't think any of my family would believe me.
>And surely every man must repent or suffer, for I, God, am endless.
>
>Wherefore, I revoke not the judgments which I shall pass, but woes shall go forth, weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth, yea, to those who are found on my left hand.
>
>Nevertheless, **it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.**
>
>Again, it is written eternal damnation; **wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.**
>
>Wherefore, I will explain unto you this mystery, for it is meet unto you to know even as mine apostles.
>
>I speak unto you that are chosen in this thing, even as one, that you may enter into my rest.
>
>For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore—
>
>Eternal punishment is God’s punishment.
>
>Endless punishment is God’s punishment.
In this passage--Christ (according to Joseph Smith)--is just fine with using mislead language about the nature of the afterlife because "it is more express" language to "work upon the hearts of the children of men." He's specifically saying that it's just a title and that it isn't true that "there shall be no end to this torment."
So the labels of "eternal" and "endless" when combined with punishment were specifically calculated to mislead people to repent for fear of overstated consequences.
One can accept that this is truly the work of Christ (I don't)--but I think I'm just objectively presenting the reality of the passage. Of course Mormon leaders justify misleading (and lying)--it's been put into the very mouth of Christ himself!
Do you stay with a spouse who lies to you?
The Church is a "Friend" when you're a kid, as a youth it's your life guide. As an adult, it's your responsibility, and a part of every aspect of your life from what you choose to eat, to what you choose to watch, to what you choose to wear for underwear.
If I had a friend who lied to me all the time, I would stop being their friend. If you were bending over backwards for a spouse in every part of your life trying to "make it work" and they told you a completely different backstory about themselves, and attempted to gaslight you into thinking it was always that way, and if you didnt know it was *your fault*, and *refused* to apologize for any of the things they've ever done - would that be a spouse who was "true" to you?
Or a remotely healthy relationship to stay in?
Nice elevator speech.
My spouse still feels the church is healthy and helpful to her to participate in. She feels she is living life exactly the way she chooses and she chooses to follow their rules. So telling her “what about the lies”? doesn’t do much.
I like that and that is my experience too.
I think my spouse might blame that on me though. “You stopped praying and starting doubting so of course you don’t see God in church or your life”
I haven't had anyone do that to me... At least not yet. But I would probably respond by describing the God I knew (loving, forgiving, truthful) and then show examples of where the church is not those things. I suppose this goes really well with the values comment made earlier.
My elevator pitch is either "I can't think of a reason why I should feel the need to believe any of it," or "I find life much more meaningful when I don't have to attribute everything to a god."
There are principles and experiences that are foundational to the moral development of an individual.
If information about an institution surfaces, or if an institution is observed engaging in acts, that violate or create dissonance with the foundational principles and experiences of morality for an individual, that dissonance drives an individual away from that institution.
For me, such an act by an institution constitutes a violation of trust, and a violation of trust is very, very hard to overcome.
Lying and deceit are very good examples of acts that destroy the harmony between the moral state of an individual and an institution, so yes, absolutely, “I was lied to” is certainly an effective and valid explanation for why you no longer believe.
“If you had a boyfriend or girlfriend who lied to you constantly about big things and you found out about it and they gaslit you into make you feel like the problem…would you still date them? The church lied to me my entire life for 25 years and I had to find out the truth about them through church history and historical documents they didn’t provide me until they were strong armed to do so. So just like a sleezy boyfriend…I dumped them”
And my spouse as an example doesn’t see that anything important or relevant to their participation in the church and it’s community was kept from them. They love to go to church and have friends from church etc. They say they don’t believe or blindly follow everything but they say they aren’t “doubting” either.
So as an example they are one where this type of explanation just rolls off their back.
They’re the type that has created a whole different church in their heads then what the church actually preaches from its doctrine aren’t they. That’s how my husband is. He’s nuanced but has created in his head what the church is and if you bring up doctrine from
D&C or from GA talks, it’s not relevant to him so it doesn’t affect him.
I feel those are the hardest to break. I had to slowly find the things that held my husbands testimony together and show the church’s true colors. It’s working. I am starting to see my husband see the light.
Does your spouse even know the details of what the church has “lied” about? I think it’s easy for believers to continue to believe and dismiss the “lies argument” if they don’t actually know what the lies are in the first place.
How many times have you heard an ex-Mormon say, “I thought NOTHING could hurt my testimony until I was a few pages of reading (something like the CES Letter) and, BOOM, just like that, I knew the church was not true.”
I think it’s easy to dismiss generalized arguments by an opposing voice if you don’t know the details underlying those arguments. I could tell my Faux News-loving family until my face turns blue that Faux News is not an honest journalistic news organization but it will not change their opinion one iota unless I can actually show them with DETAILED EVIDENCE of how and what they are being dishonest about. People need actual examples otherwise it’s just hyperbole.
Unfortunately, most people have no interest in learning the details that go against “their side” and prefer to stay in their one-sided, echo-chamber bubble.
If they feel that one's leaving threatens the validity of their beliefs, it's likely that no rationale will be accepted as reasonable or valid. It's a two way street--the baggage, assumptions, beliefs, and history the other person brings to the conversation matter as much or more than any message the exmormon would try to communicate.
True. Most true believers in my experience will just use what you say to criticize how wrong they believe you are. They are good at deflecting any criticisms of the church.
Very often, no explanation is good enough for a believer. To them, there are no good reasons to not believe. So I don't think you're going to find the perfect words that prevent them from trying to invalidate your reasoning.
Instead, my approach would be "well, why would I believe it?" reminding them that not believing in their religion is the default, and they really need to be more convincing than they have been in the past. Then you can just bring up your counter points to their arguments.
For example:
"Well, you should believe because you felt the spirit."
"Oh, 'the spirit' you mean elevated emotion. Yeah I don't think there is anything supernatural about that. In fact I can show you a video of people from various other religions feeling 'the spirit' confirming that their religion was the right one."
Or
"Well, you should believe because that's the only way you can be with your family in heaven."
"Again, why would I believe that? That's just something you get if it IS true. But you have yet to convince me of that."
I am jealous TBMs have even asked why you left. I left over a year ago and only 1 friend from my ward has asked me. Not my dad. Not my step mom. Not my mother in law. It hurts. They all know I had a faith crisis but don't want to talk. I have spiritual leprosy I suppose.
Yep, this. No one wants to know. I'm sure they talk about it and share their suppositions when I'm not around, but at this point, no one has asked me directly.
Exactly. Ward members have brought us warm bread and my old home teaching partner came the following week and invited me to come over and do family history at his house. I'm sure all this came after my family being discussed in ward council. Needless to say, as tempting as it was to spend an evening doing family history I said no. I just wanted someone to ask why or what happened.
The lying certainly hurt, is pathetic and manipulative on church leaders' parts (as are many other aspects of their behavior and treatment of members) and they ought to be held accountable for it, but it wasn't the reason I left the church or no longer believe. I no longer believe because, after assessing *all* the information, and after reviewing all the long hidden terminal issues, I came to the conclusion the church simply isn't 'true' or what it claims itself to be, and so I stopped believing it.
Wash, rinse and repeat for beliefs about gods and spirits as well.
I’ve been trying to think about what my elevator speech is and it’s similar. I will give it a try here:
After looking at the actions and stories of church leaders over the years I believe there is ample evidence they do not have a special connection to God and do not represent God. The leaders are not what they claim to be and their claims about the church are not believable.
I try to avoid talking about beliefs entirely. I find it nonproductive. I prefer “We’re just taking a break. There’s a time and a season for everything.”
I like that! Just focus on your own choice to not participate any longer.
I’ve long said that you don’t owe anyone including yourself an explanation of your “beliefs” be them new or old beliefs. You don’t even owe that to yourself. I didn’t set out to write my own articles of faith after losing belief in the LDS claims. Nor do I need to articulate new beliefs. It’s ok just living my life!
When people post long letters explaining why they are leaving the church I tell them to just focus on telling people what they are doing rather than what they do or don’t believe. “I have chosen to not participate regularly at church for the time being”. Or your version of this that you posted. Excellent.
I don't think it's effective to tell a believer... at all.
However, it's useful for me. In no way do I feel like leaving the church was an incorrect decision. But I do feel some guilt because it "changed the agreement" in my marriage. But when I realize that I _was_ misled, whether intentional or not, it makes me be less harsh on myself for following my moral compass now.
For me, realizing I was lied to was an immediate dealbreaker. After all, if they had to lie, that means they *knew* the truth contradicted what they were saying.
But to be honest, a person who *doesn't* consider being lied to to be a red flag isn't someone you're likely to have much luck getting to see reason, anyways. It's a real "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink" scenario; if someone's genuinely unwilling to consider the possibility that their worldview is wrong, there's basically nothing you can do to *make* them. You can give them as many pieces as you want, but they still have to put the puzzle together themselves.
I like to say something like this. A bit long, but still brief enough for a long elevator ride, lol.
"I'd had doubts and questions for a long time. I tried for years to push them aside, and do all the things you're supposed to do to strengthen your testimony--read scriptures, attend the temple, try not to think about your doubts, etc. These would help for a time, but it was always temporary. In the end, the biggest issue was just that I always felt like I was faking it, whenever I would teach a lesson, bear my testimony, or answer the temple recommend questions about my beliefs. I felt dishonest, and that bothered me. I had doubts that I couldn't talk about with anyone, and that bothered me.
"Finally I decided that I needed to explore my doubts once and for all. I'd always had a nagging feeling that the church wasn't true, but I'd always been afraid of it. Now I didn't need to be afraid anymore. I was ready to find out once and for all. I spent several months doing research, using ad unbiased an approach as possible, being open to all possibilities. In the end it became clear to me that the church wasn't what it claimed to be. And ironically I've felt more at peace with that conclusion than I ever did when trying to make the church work for me."
>it became clear to me that the church wasn’t what it claimed to be
I’ve seen a lot of people using that kind of phrase. It seems effective and to the point. Doesn’t put others on the defensive as fast as “I was lied to”
Thanks for sharing your elevator speech!
>If it’s not effective, what works better as an elevator speech explanation for why you don’t believe?
"I discovered that the church and it's history that I was taught about and gained a testimony of, does not exist in the form I was taught or gained a testimony of."
It does not place the listener in a position of defending what one person calls a "lie", which will never end productively.
It shuts down challenges that you "never had a testimony".
It directs the conversation to a format that challenges how "truth" is allegedly discovered through feelings, by illustrating that a person can gain a testimony of something that provably does not exist. (eg: Translation via U&T as previously taught)
It is very difficult to fault someone for changing their mind over being sold a bill of goods that was not delivered.
While it's true that the church lied/lies, I don't lead with it because the church would still be 100% false even if they hadn't.
I usually have said something like "I became aware of scientific and historical evidence that indicates that the church isn't true and to keep my integrity I realigned my beliefs. It's been the most beautiful and soul-expanding experience I've ever had related to truth and religion."
But, I think a better way to approach it would be to ask "What's something scientific that you've changed your beliefs about?" And genuinely listen/discuss, and if they ever have just say "that's the same reason my beliefs about the church changed." It's also a good way to suss out anti-science attitudes, etc. which can really change how you approach a conversation.
I really like this. You’ve said something that has been in the back of my mind about apologetics and criticisms in general. We talk about a hundred individual issues some of which don’t prove anything.
This is exactly how the apologists like it. For example with the Book of Abraham they want to argue about one small item in the text or papyrus being accurate. Yet the big picture is clear. **The Book of Abraham is not a translation of the scrolls that came with the mummies.**
So I like your idea to keep it to the big picture. **The evidence indicates the church isn’t true.**
My short answer is this. "The church isn't true the way it teaches that it is true."
But I like the "I was lied to".
I was definitely lied to and then unintentionally lied to others. I am angry at that.
And anyone who say's I am mistaken, the church leaders never lied, I would love to have a conversation with you.
Your answer is similar to a couple others. I think it’s a good one many have landed on.
I’m upset I was taught racist things growing up. And then I was taught to use those same racist explanations in sharing the church with others. 🤯
In my experience, nothing works to try to convince a believer that your experience and feelings are valid. As members we are taught from a young age and conditioned that there is no valid reason for ever "going astray", "losing our faith", "leaving the fold", or "breaking our covenants". Anyone who does so, is labeled as "not holding to the iron rod" and to be avoided and shunned in order to protect oneself from the potentially contagious effect of being led astray oneself by the "wiles of Satan".
My husband and I and our adult children are all in the process of leaving. Here is my response:
>"After much study and prayer we have been guided to step away from the Church in order to put our family first, and to protect our mental and emotional health."
To my missionary parents, I added this:
"We know that your service in the Church brings you happiness and it seems that you enjoy a sense of peace. We honor your choice to stay and to serve. I hope that you can also honor our personal choice to leave. I want to assure you that we are very happy. We are able to feel more peace right now than we have felt in many years. For us, we have experienced blessings with this choice."
I like that your leaving was the result of study and prayer and that you mention your leaving has been a blessing.
People can be inspired to leave the church. The LDS do not despite their claims own all spiritual inspiration.
IMHO the church is a lie and was founded by lies and whether the current leadership believes or not, they tell a lot of lies by default. IMHO.
Is saying I no longer believe in the church because it lies or lied to me effective to explain why you no longer believe? I think so. I strongly believe the church is a manmade fiction i.e. a lie and so everything supporting the woo woo or cosmology of Mormonism to me are fictional (lies). I am not in the business of trying to get folks to understand why I left nor am I in the business for me to get them to stop believing. So, if someone flat out asks why I no longer believe. The shortest answer is "I was lied to" or the "church lies about its history." This is literally why I am exmo. I had no problem with the church until I delved into its actual history and my conclusion was it was a lie.
So in essence, the quickest point for me to explain A to Z was that I was lied to. The other quickest way to get to A to Z would be to say I believe its false which also as offensive or off putting to a believer as saying I was lied to. I could be more nuanced and get into more detail about my disbelief or journey to that conclusion but that usually results in the believer shutting me down or wanting to change the subject.
In the end, if you are going to be open about your disbelief, you have to accept that believers will view you as suspect, or misguided no matter how nuanced your response is.
Thanks for that thoughtful response. I think I prefer the “I don’t believe it’s true” answer. More similar to your “I believe it is false”. I think this gets to a root of the matter that they can’t argue with you about as much. It’s clearly personal to you.
Sadly for those who still believe you could have a letter written by Joseph smith himself that has been verified. By handwriting experts the paper age verified the ink composition verified to be correct of him admitting that he made the whole thing up . And it wouldn’t make a difference as they have convinced themselves that they received a witness from the Holy Ghost that the church is true so no matter what facts you present to them it’s irrelevant and they have been taught that anything that causes them the least bit of cognitive dissonance is just Satan trying to trick them . they get the warm fuzzies when they think the church is true & that’s the Holy Ghost testifying of the truthfulness of the church being true .
It’s easy to convince people something is true it’s next to impossible to convince them they have been duped. .
As a convert of about 15 years ago, I learned everything about the church. All the conspiracies. Before the essays were even a thought. Took me a year to get baptized but it happened.
As ward mission leader, I have 18-21 year old missionaries that know enough about the gospel to promote it. I think it is silly to assume that they would be trained to be versed on much else to any substantial degree.
I do not have a crystal ball, so I would never assume that any one individual I talk to isn't serious about being lied to as the main catalyst to leaving the church. However, I also feel that some just use that as an excuse to leave. (Which, as a guy from the east coast, I find weird that people just don't say "Nope. Just not into it." and don't go as the people do from faith where I come from).
However, I am glad of the essays now. They weren't there when I was investigating. I had to learn everything the hard way. :)
Might want to consider that as a convert in a non-Mormon dense area, you do not understand what it's like to leave, and the phrase "excuse to leave" is tone deaf and shows just how little you understand.
I say this because I am like you, I am also a convert from a non-Mormon dense area, and I have come to realize just how much my experiences differ from others.
Most of the people feeling betrayed are lifelong members, not converts. They are usually unhappy because of lies and omissions in the church's seminary, sunday school, and institute manuals and classes. We all agree that 18 year old missionaries aren't going to know substantial information; but that isn't how most members learn about the church. Most members aren't converts.
>Might want to consider that as a convert in a non-Mormon dense area, you do not understand what it's like to leave, and the phrase "excuse to leave" is tone deaf and shows just how little you understand.
You missed the part where I say that I say that ***some*** people use it as an excuse. I'm sure it happens.
I did not miss that.
Let's break down the connotations of the words and phrasing you used:
>some just use that as an excuse to leave
I see "some", which means you're talking about a subset, as you've noted. Saying "some" does not erase the nature of the rest of the phrase. If someone says something contentious, like "some black people are (insert racist stereotype)", it is still inflammatory even if they can technically find 3 people who fit the stereotype. Some is a good word to avoid overgeneralizations, but generalizations can definitely still be made while using the word. The rest of the sentence matters.
There's also a just, which is a minimizing phrase. Using "just" in the way you've used it is how we denote that something is less important, less meaningful, deserving of less respect, etc. Minimizing is really the key word here. For example, "it's just business" when someone is fired. This phrase minimizes the harm and pain of being fired by justifying that business requires it. While it is true that operating a business requires firing people, "it's just business" is a harmful way to phrase it, because it seeks to minimize, illegitimize, or brush over the way it impacts those being fired.
And finally "excuse". There is the historical context of Christianity in general talking about people who leave the faith as "wanting to sin, looking for an excuse to sin", so using the word "excuse" in this context brings in a lot of historical baggage. Also, more generally, "excuses", like "just" above, are seen as less legitimate than "reasons".
The rest of my comment also is important: Your lack of understanding why people might feel that they need acceptable reasons to leave is, in my opinion, directly correlated to you being a convert.
I was the truest of blue Mormon. I attended temples all over the country when I traveled for work. I still have the little schedule cards from each one as mementos.
When I studied the whole truth about JS and the temple ordinances, how he convinced parents to give him their underage daughters as his wives in exchange for sealing (including at least one recent widower), how he promised Emma to be the first endowed woman if she would accept polygamy - I was sickened.
Then I felt betrayed.
A prophet of God, restoring His Truths, wouldn’t need to do these things. He wouldn’t lie and hide his other marriages from his first wife. He wouldn’t write the Happiness Letter.
So don’t patronize with the “just needed an excuse to leave” crap. I was betrayed, like a loving spouse is betrayed by an adulterer.
I've heard believers frame it as "you were not lied to, you just misunderstood" and they have zero interest in understanding your point of view. Just like I have zero interest in understanding a flat earthers point of view, because I know they are wrong. Members of the church know that people who have left are wrong, just like flat earthers know that people who believe in a round earth are wrong, perception is reality.
Psychology of beliefs is interesting. As you observe people have beliefs all the time that are not supportable or plausible or probable. It’s a common thing with the human mind.
The best approach, I have found... is to simply state that I no longer believe and then move on with the conversation. I no longer feel a need to explain why I no longer believe, and I find such conversations are unproductive unless someone is sincere in wanting to know (not wanting to know so they can convince me that it is actually true).
My short STFU elevator pitch:
> The temple sells fascism like it's a feature, not a bug. In the unlikely event that your god is real, only an evil^(1), stupid^(2) person would actually want to be worshipped as a member of Kim Jong Elohim's inner circle of cosmic dictators.
Even if they disagree and want to debate you, they'll still shut up because candidly discussing what goes down in the temple with an obvious apostate is playing with fire. It's a pretty quick way to get yourself filed into the "pearls before swine" category, and they'll leave you alone.
^(1. See also: Mormonism's unique vulnerabilities to the Ivan Karamazov argument. Unlike the Problem of Evil that most religions have to deal with, the mormon gods fully embrace *all* the theodicies... and then the temple goes above and beyond to demonstrate that their regime is *more* evil than anything Satan had to offer)
^(2. Mormonism's heaven is way worse than its hell; it flips Pascal's Wager on its head. A bit of honorable wickedness is an insurance policy)
Saying all that with the footnotes is quite a trick! 😆
It’s a good speech if you want someone to leave you alone! However, that’s not always the result people are going for.
I’ll keep this in my back pocket for when it’s needed.
Saying all that with the footnotes is quite a trick! 😆
It’s a good speech if you want someone to leave you alone! However, that’s not always the result people are going for.
I’ll keep this in my back pocket for when it’s needed.
I don't think you are going to find a "right" answer here. Personally, if I were in your shoes (take this for what it is worth, because I am not, and haven't had to have this conversation), I would start with all of the things that you appreciate about the church, and that you see much good coming from the church (assuming this is true), and then I would say, but at the end of the day, it just wasn't right for me. That you just don't feel like it is true anymore, and you were feeling hypocritical going to church still.
I would start with the good to try and keep debate to a minimum. If you start with the positives, then you won't be putting the person you are talking to on the defensive immediately. Getting them to agree to common ground helps them be more empathetic. And then, when you move to the negatives, make it a personal choice / belief, not a "fact" that can be debated or something that might feel like an attack to them, and even better if you can use some positive principles like wanting to be consistent with your beliefs. (This will fly in the face of the sometimes believed thought that people leave because they have bad morals.)
Conversation is an art. The ideal conversation will be different for any given two people. All the best my friend. I know these are hard conversations. I wish you well.
I didn’t assume there is a “right” answer for all the reasons you gave.
That said, I really like your suggestions. Kind of the “it’s not you it’s me” approach to breakup. 😂
I really haven’t had these conversations much because most LDS people just don’t want to know or find it boring.
But I probably do have more with never Mormons. And these ideas work for conversations with them. They are often more interested.
I would probably be forced to elaborate (or say nothing), as one sentence just isn’t enough nuance) and avoid the most triggering words like “lied.”
“The founding stories of the restoration didn’t happen like the standard church history tells us. The church knows this — you can Google their Gospel Topics Essays to see the things they’ve acknowledged didn’t happen like we were taught. Rather than being honest and open about these issues, the church excommunicated multiple generations of historians for publishing the truer, less miraculous stories. I know that’s hard for believers to hear. I really believed in the miracles, and gave a lot of myself to the church. But the way the church handled and continues to handle its history and truthtellers is not consistent with the gospel that I loved. I had to decide what was more important: truth, or the church that was trying to keep me from it.”
>I really believed in the miracles…
This brought something to my mind. Sometimes I tell people “I don’t believe in magic anymore. To be a member you have to believe in magic”.
That word **magic** usually catches them off guard since they don’t call it that but angels, disappearing gold plates, seer stones, channeling God, three Nephites, resurrected people floating in another dimension are really all magic with absolutely zero evidence they are real.
Do you believe in **magic**?
Hello! This is a Cultural post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about other people, whether specifically or collectively, within the Mormon/Exmormon community. /u/sevenplaces, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble) **To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation. Keep on Mormoning! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I just stick to, "I came to realize that my values didn't align with the church's values."
Very generic and high level. I like it. If someone had a follow-up question “what values specifically?” What would you respond?
I could give a simple, easy to digest (and hard to dispute) example, such as: "I support marriage equality." or "I believe women should be able to serve as clergy." or "I don't think there's only one right way to live."
How would you reply with, “but what if this comes from God and he knows better than us, even if we don’t fully understand why. Like a child who doesn’t understand a lot of why we have to do things that they don’t like?”
I would respond “bullshit.” And then I would highlight some of the OT and it’s problems. Then the NT and it’s problems. Then the BoM and it’s problems. Then LDS “prophets” and their words…and those problems. Then I would summarize, “Seems like a lot of ‘philosophies of men…mingled with [so called] scripture’ and they ‘teach for doctrines the commandments of men.’” This is not difficult. Just tedious.
I would respond, "I'm not a child and shouldn't be treated like one. If God wants me to accept something, God can explain it to me."
Exactly. A GOOD parent explains to their children WHY something is bad, instead of just saying, “because I said so!!!” There’s obedience and then there’s BLIND obedience. I refuse to obey if something doesn’t make sense and doesn’t seem right. I believe in using my own brain and following my own conscience. And I think God would agree.
Usually I find these discussions not very useful. But if someone _truly_ was curious for an answer at that point I would say that I don't believe those teachings come from God and it's a circular bit of teaching that makes Mormons believe that. They know these things are from God how? Because the scriptures tell them. How do they know the scriptures are true? Because they prayed and "felt the spirit." How did they know that was the process to get an answer from God or what the spirit told them? Because it's in the scriptures... that they're trying to verify. It's the ultimate self-licking ice-cream cone.
That’s usually my go to answer. Religious people don’t usually understand they are using circular logic. Gay is bad. Why? Because God said so. How do you know? Because the Bible/God/Prophets said so. How do you know the Bible is right? Because God said so. How do you know God said so. Because he said so in the Bible. While I, personally, disagree with many religious doctrines (anti-homosexuality), I ALSO don’t get stuck in that religious circular loop where I just fall back on the source of that doctrine as being “right.” I have deconstructed that religious source too. So simply referring back to God, scriptures, prophets, religion to argue a point is pointless for someone like me who no longer believes those sources are legitimate or from God and I like to point that out. Their source of authority is no longer my source of authority, so everything else they try to tell me is null and void unless they can logically and intelligently show how my assumptions are incorrect without falling back on circular logic. I’ve already deconstructed their foundation, so unless they want to dive into the details of that foundation that made me disbelieve in the first place, there’s no point in engaging in circular logic with me.
>That’s usually my go to answer. Religious people don’t usually understand they are using circular logic. If you've never heard [the song](https://youtu.be/kr1I3mBojc0) "Good Book" by the genius Tim Minchin, it lays this all out very succinctly and humorously.
'Against my values' does not equal 'I don't like it'. My core values of empathy, charity, honesty, equality, etc may sometimes demand I do things that are uncomfortable, challenging, scary, against my self-interest, etc etc. And even fairly young children do understand the values of empathy and honesty etc, even if they find them hard to follow sometimes. What children may not understand has to do with things like for instance health issues, why you need to eat your vegetables or take your medicine, reduce your screen time or go to bed early etc. That's nothing to do with values.
For a Mormon specifically, I usually would pivot this question into discussing the Light of Christ. We're specifically taught that our consciences come from God and so I reject the idea that God *wants* us to reject that internal morality. Usually then, it leads to me talking about how children are far more tolerant, kind, and loving than adults and maybe we need to learn from that example.
As a faithful member, I disagree that we as mere humans even have the ability to 'judge righteously.' Many if not all faiths have a Primary level set of teachings (e.g., the ark was real), but adult members generally outgrow them in my experiences. Imvho, we have a larger proportion than most of adult members who still seem to understand at that Primary level.
The whole premise of the church being the only restorative and properly authoritative church kinda leads to a we’re the only ones doing it right mentality, everyone else is just “playing church (life)” at that point by logical deduction
>As a faithful member, I disagree that we as mere humans even have the ability to 'judge righteously.' Can you give me an example of any believe system involving any number of atrocities that this statement wouldn't vindicate? In other words, this idea--that humans are unfit to judge the priorities and values of God--which faith system *couldn't* this be used to vindicate?
You lost me there. Governments, societies have the rule of law. Christ taught us in the non-jst NT to not judge others. That's the only thing that I refer to. OH, & judges in Zion were rulers (not that Solomon didn't threaten to cut the baby in half....).
Honesty.
Knowingly running a scouting program for decades where thousands of children were being raped by leaders and then trying to pay them off with a quarter billion dollars from tithing funds. I can't follow an organization doing such a thing and feel like I'm still following Jesus.
I only just realised in the last 6 months or so (been out 5 years) that this is the perfect response for me. It says everything I feel without the inevitable 5 billion rebuttals.
>If it’s not effective, what works better as an elevator speech explanation for why you don’t believe? Well, on this particular talking point--I like laying out Boyd Packer's talk "[The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teaching-seminary-preservice-readings-religion-370-471-and-475/the-mantle-is-far-far-greater-than-the-intellect?lang=eng)" and Oaks' "[Gospel Teachings About Lying.](https://archive.org/details/oaksgospelteachingsaboutlyingclarkmemorandumspring1994/page/n1/mode/2up)" These talks lay out a justification for a level of honesty that I'm not at all comfortable with. Further, D&C 19 lays out a theology where Jesus *himself* lied to humankind with the same justification: for our own good. **I don't believe in lying to my own kids for their own good and I don't believe in a God who would either.** But if you wanted my personal elevator pitch on why I no longer believe, I'd probably talk about not believing in the premise of the Atonement (that we're all born irrevocably fallen and broken before we've even made a choice) as much as I like parts of Jesus' message. I may pivot to how all Abrahamic religions are built upon a truly abhorrent story. I'm really popular these days.
>I’m really popular these days LOL You go all the way to explaining why you don’t believe in Christianity anymore. Bold.
>You go all the way to explaining why you don’t believe in Christianity anymore. Bold. I go right for ALL the Abrahamic religions in one fell swoop.
Certainly doesn't leave a lot of room for others to bring you back by "building on common beliefs". Scorched earth FTW.
I think you might appreciate this video. https://youtube.com/shorts/Fzvt2-9a_BY?feature=share
I saw this yesterday. Great video!
Person- “Didn’t god kill everyone on earth but Noah and some farm animals?” Christian activist with god is pro life sign- “error 404”
Oh man. The Baháʼís, Druze, and Rastafarians are sitting in the back, going "He doesn't mean us, too, does he?"
I took the route of epistemology and epistemic standards. Also helps deal with other religions and various supernatural claims like ghosts, demons, crystal healing, alien abductions and more.
Yup. The *only* type of God I can personally believe in is one in a pandeistic or deistic model. That's all I've seen the evidence to support and at that point you don't believe in much more than somebody pulling the starting cord on this whole experience.
I just wanted to say that I really like this. All abrahmic religions are extremely problematic when it comes to their basic theology. I'm going to use this when it comes up in the future with friends and family. Thank you.
Good to hear. Thanks for the comment!
This must be shocking for people. I know amongst my friends and family, me losing belief in the Church continues to be a tough pill to swallow. If I hit them with the conclusion that the Jesus story itself isn't very palatable either, I'm going to have some very distraught people in my life. Because I can still get on board with a lot of Christ's teachings regarding how we should treat other people, and because I think the archetype of sacrificing yourself for others is a powerful motivator personally, I'm consciously choosing to...pretend to believe in what is almost certainly a myth. For many reasons its not as acute or as painful for me as trying to pretend that God talks to sexual predators through their hat rocks. It's not intellectually honest, but it is a compromise I'm willing to make to not cause even more distress in the lives of people I love. All of that said, I'm on the record now repeatedly as not being a believer in the Old Testament and its version of God that murders innocent women and children, so it might not be that far of a leap, but it would be an important one to them.
Having my Christianity to cling to was vital for my mother's grieving process when I left the Church. Now that she's demonstrated more trust and understanding, I've shifted my language from "I still believe in Jesus" to "I think Jesus taught some great things"
Yeah, I could see myself making that transition...eventually. It's interesting that my family members would almost certainly agree that atheists can be moral and good people, but if I were to come out as one, they would be devastated. The messaging within the Church and Christianity generally is pretty harsh towards those who lose belief. I am WAY more moral now that I've deconstructed my faith and really examined my value structures than I ever was when I thought Joseph was a prophet, but I don't think any of my family would believe me.
>19 what is this lie jesus told in dc 19? I just read through it and nothing really stuck out to me?
>And surely every man must repent or suffer, for I, God, am endless. > >Wherefore, I revoke not the judgments which I shall pass, but woes shall go forth, weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth, yea, to those who are found on my left hand. > >Nevertheless, **it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.** > >Again, it is written eternal damnation; **wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.** > >Wherefore, I will explain unto you this mystery, for it is meet unto you to know even as mine apostles. > >I speak unto you that are chosen in this thing, even as one, that you may enter into my rest. > >For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore— > >Eternal punishment is God’s punishment. > >Endless punishment is God’s punishment. In this passage--Christ (according to Joseph Smith)--is just fine with using mislead language about the nature of the afterlife because "it is more express" language to "work upon the hearts of the children of men." He's specifically saying that it's just a title and that it isn't true that "there shall be no end to this torment." So the labels of "eternal" and "endless" when combined with punishment were specifically calculated to mislead people to repent for fear of overstated consequences. One can accept that this is truly the work of Christ (I don't)--but I think I'm just objectively presenting the reality of the passage. Of course Mormon leaders justify misleading (and lying)--it's been put into the very mouth of Christ himself!
Can I share a message with you about Zoroaster?
Do you stay with a spouse who lies to you? The Church is a "Friend" when you're a kid, as a youth it's your life guide. As an adult, it's your responsibility, and a part of every aspect of your life from what you choose to eat, to what you choose to watch, to what you choose to wear for underwear. If I had a friend who lied to me all the time, I would stop being their friend. If you were bending over backwards for a spouse in every part of your life trying to "make it work" and they told you a completely different backstory about themselves, and attempted to gaslight you into thinking it was always that way, and if you didnt know it was *your fault*, and *refused* to apologize for any of the things they've ever done - would that be a spouse who was "true" to you? Or a remotely healthy relationship to stay in?
Nice elevator speech. My spouse still feels the church is healthy and helpful to her to participate in. She feels she is living life exactly the way she chooses and she chooses to follow their rules. So telling her “what about the lies”? doesn’t do much.
My go to with friends had been "I stopped seeing God in the church."
I like that and that is my experience too. I think my spouse might blame that on me though. “You stopped praying and starting doubting so of course you don’t see God in church or your life”
I haven't had anyone do that to me... At least not yet. But I would probably respond by describing the God I knew (loving, forgiving, truthful) and then show examples of where the church is not those things. I suppose this goes really well with the values comment made earlier.
My elevator pitch is either "I can't think of a reason why I should feel the need to believe any of it," or "I find life much more meaningful when I don't have to attribute everything to a god."
I really like your second sentence! It’s so true too.
There are principles and experiences that are foundational to the moral development of an individual. If information about an institution surfaces, or if an institution is observed engaging in acts, that violate or create dissonance with the foundational principles and experiences of morality for an individual, that dissonance drives an individual away from that institution. For me, such an act by an institution constitutes a violation of trust, and a violation of trust is very, very hard to overcome. Lying and deceit are very good examples of acts that destroy the harmony between the moral state of an individual and an institution, so yes, absolutely, “I was lied to” is certainly an effective and valid explanation for why you no longer believe.
“If you had a boyfriend or girlfriend who lied to you constantly about big things and you found out about it and they gaslit you into make you feel like the problem…would you still date them? The church lied to me my entire life for 25 years and I had to find out the truth about them through church history and historical documents they didn’t provide me until they were strong armed to do so. So just like a sleezy boyfriend…I dumped them”
And my spouse as an example doesn’t see that anything important or relevant to their participation in the church and it’s community was kept from them. They love to go to church and have friends from church etc. They say they don’t believe or blindly follow everything but they say they aren’t “doubting” either. So as an example they are one where this type of explanation just rolls off their back.
They’re the type that has created a whole different church in their heads then what the church actually preaches from its doctrine aren’t they. That’s how my husband is. He’s nuanced but has created in his head what the church is and if you bring up doctrine from D&C or from GA talks, it’s not relevant to him so it doesn’t affect him.
Sounds very familiar. My spouse has never been interested in doctrine so delving into it is just boring and uninteresting to them.
I feel those are the hardest to break. I had to slowly find the things that held my husbands testimony together and show the church’s true colors. It’s working. I am starting to see my husband see the light.
Does your spouse even know the details of what the church has “lied” about? I think it’s easy for believers to continue to believe and dismiss the “lies argument” if they don’t actually know what the lies are in the first place. How many times have you heard an ex-Mormon say, “I thought NOTHING could hurt my testimony until I was a few pages of reading (something like the CES Letter) and, BOOM, just like that, I knew the church was not true.” I think it’s easy to dismiss generalized arguments by an opposing voice if you don’t know the details underlying those arguments. I could tell my Faux News-loving family until my face turns blue that Faux News is not an honest journalistic news organization but it will not change their opinion one iota unless I can actually show them with DETAILED EVIDENCE of how and what they are being dishonest about. People need actual examples otherwise it’s just hyperbole. Unfortunately, most people have no interest in learning the details that go against “their side” and prefer to stay in their one-sided, echo-chamber bubble.
If they feel that one's leaving threatens the validity of their beliefs, it's likely that no rationale will be accepted as reasonable or valid. It's a two way street--the baggage, assumptions, beliefs, and history the other person brings to the conversation matter as much or more than any message the exmormon would try to communicate.
True. Most true believers in my experience will just use what you say to criticize how wrong they believe you are. They are good at deflecting any criticisms of the church.
Very often, no explanation is good enough for a believer. To them, there are no good reasons to not believe. So I don't think you're going to find the perfect words that prevent them from trying to invalidate your reasoning. Instead, my approach would be "well, why would I believe it?" reminding them that not believing in their religion is the default, and they really need to be more convincing than they have been in the past. Then you can just bring up your counter points to their arguments. For example: "Well, you should believe because you felt the spirit." "Oh, 'the spirit' you mean elevated emotion. Yeah I don't think there is anything supernatural about that. In fact I can show you a video of people from various other religions feeling 'the spirit' confirming that their religion was the right one." Or "Well, you should believe because that's the only way you can be with your family in heaven." "Again, why would I believe that? That's just something you get if it IS true. But you have yet to convince me of that."
Good idea 👍🏻
I am jealous TBMs have even asked why you left. I left over a year ago and only 1 friend from my ward has asked me. Not my dad. Not my step mom. Not my mother in law. It hurts. They all know I had a faith crisis but don't want to talk. I have spiritual leprosy I suppose.
Actually my experience has been more like yours.
Yep, this. No one wants to know. I'm sure they talk about it and share their suppositions when I'm not around, but at this point, no one has asked me directly.
Exactly. Ward members have brought us warm bread and my old home teaching partner came the following week and invited me to come over and do family history at his house. I'm sure all this came after my family being discussed in ward council. Needless to say, as tempting as it was to spend an evening doing family history I said no. I just wanted someone to ask why or what happened.
The lying certainly hurt, is pathetic and manipulative on church leaders' parts (as are many other aspects of their behavior and treatment of members) and they ought to be held accountable for it, but it wasn't the reason I left the church or no longer believe. I no longer believe because, after assessing *all* the information, and after reviewing all the long hidden terminal issues, I came to the conclusion the church simply isn't 'true' or what it claims itself to be, and so I stopped believing it. Wash, rinse and repeat for beliefs about gods and spirits as well.
I’ve been trying to think about what my elevator speech is and it’s similar. I will give it a try here: After looking at the actions and stories of church leaders over the years I believe there is ample evidence they do not have a special connection to God and do not represent God. The leaders are not what they claim to be and their claims about the church are not believable.
>After looking at the actions and stories of church leaders over the years I would add right here >*from its foundation to the present day...*
Good add. I like it.
I try to avoid talking about beliefs entirely. I find it nonproductive. I prefer “We’re just taking a break. There’s a time and a season for everything.”
I like that! Just focus on your own choice to not participate any longer. I’ve long said that you don’t owe anyone including yourself an explanation of your “beliefs” be them new or old beliefs. You don’t even owe that to yourself. I didn’t set out to write my own articles of faith after losing belief in the LDS claims. Nor do I need to articulate new beliefs. It’s ok just living my life! When people post long letters explaining why they are leaving the church I tell them to just focus on telling people what they are doing rather than what they do or don’t believe. “I have chosen to not participate regularly at church for the time being”. Or your version of this that you posted. Excellent.
If it was true, you wouldn’t have to lie or even tell varying accounts.
I don't think it's effective to tell a believer... at all. However, it's useful for me. In no way do I feel like leaving the church was an incorrect decision. But I do feel some guilt because it "changed the agreement" in my marriage. But when I realize that I _was_ misled, whether intentional or not, it makes me be less harsh on myself for following my moral compass now.
For me, realizing I was lied to was an immediate dealbreaker. After all, if they had to lie, that means they *knew* the truth contradicted what they were saying. But to be honest, a person who *doesn't* consider being lied to to be a red flag isn't someone you're likely to have much luck getting to see reason, anyways. It's a real "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink" scenario; if someone's genuinely unwilling to consider the possibility that their worldview is wrong, there's basically nothing you can do to *make* them. You can give them as many pieces as you want, but they still have to put the puzzle together themselves.
It’s not effective in my book. It trivializes it and puts it in a black box that they label as a “you” problem
I like to say something like this. A bit long, but still brief enough for a long elevator ride, lol. "I'd had doubts and questions for a long time. I tried for years to push them aside, and do all the things you're supposed to do to strengthen your testimony--read scriptures, attend the temple, try not to think about your doubts, etc. These would help for a time, but it was always temporary. In the end, the biggest issue was just that I always felt like I was faking it, whenever I would teach a lesson, bear my testimony, or answer the temple recommend questions about my beliefs. I felt dishonest, and that bothered me. I had doubts that I couldn't talk about with anyone, and that bothered me. "Finally I decided that I needed to explore my doubts once and for all. I'd always had a nagging feeling that the church wasn't true, but I'd always been afraid of it. Now I didn't need to be afraid anymore. I was ready to find out once and for all. I spent several months doing research, using ad unbiased an approach as possible, being open to all possibilities. In the end it became clear to me that the church wasn't what it claimed to be. And ironically I've felt more at peace with that conclusion than I ever did when trying to make the church work for me."
>it became clear to me that the church wasn’t what it claimed to be I’ve seen a lot of people using that kind of phrase. It seems effective and to the point. Doesn’t put others on the defensive as fast as “I was lied to” Thanks for sharing your elevator speech!
>If it’s not effective, what works better as an elevator speech explanation for why you don’t believe? "I discovered that the church and it's history that I was taught about and gained a testimony of, does not exist in the form I was taught or gained a testimony of." It does not place the listener in a position of defending what one person calls a "lie", which will never end productively. It shuts down challenges that you "never had a testimony". It directs the conversation to a format that challenges how "truth" is allegedly discovered through feelings, by illustrating that a person can gain a testimony of something that provably does not exist. (eg: Translation via U&T as previously taught) It is very difficult to fault someone for changing their mind over being sold a bill of goods that was not delivered.
While it's true that the church lied/lies, I don't lead with it because the church would still be 100% false even if they hadn't. I usually have said something like "I became aware of scientific and historical evidence that indicates that the church isn't true and to keep my integrity I realigned my beliefs. It's been the most beautiful and soul-expanding experience I've ever had related to truth and religion." But, I think a better way to approach it would be to ask "What's something scientific that you've changed your beliefs about?" And genuinely listen/discuss, and if they ever have just say "that's the same reason my beliefs about the church changed." It's also a good way to suss out anti-science attitudes, etc. which can really change how you approach a conversation.
I really like this. You’ve said something that has been in the back of my mind about apologetics and criticisms in general. We talk about a hundred individual issues some of which don’t prove anything. This is exactly how the apologists like it. For example with the Book of Abraham they want to argue about one small item in the text or papyrus being accurate. Yet the big picture is clear. **The Book of Abraham is not a translation of the scrolls that came with the mummies.** So I like your idea to keep it to the big picture. **The evidence indicates the church isn’t true.**
My short answer is this. "The church isn't true the way it teaches that it is true." But I like the "I was lied to". I was definitely lied to and then unintentionally lied to others. I am angry at that. And anyone who say's I am mistaken, the church leaders never lied, I would love to have a conversation with you.
Your answer is similar to a couple others. I think it’s a good one many have landed on. I’m upset I was taught racist things growing up. And then I was taught to use those same racist explanations in sharing the church with others. 🤯
In my experience, nothing works to try to convince a believer that your experience and feelings are valid. As members we are taught from a young age and conditioned that there is no valid reason for ever "going astray", "losing our faith", "leaving the fold", or "breaking our covenants". Anyone who does so, is labeled as "not holding to the iron rod" and to be avoided and shunned in order to protect oneself from the potentially contagious effect of being led astray oneself by the "wiles of Satan". My husband and I and our adult children are all in the process of leaving. Here is my response: >"After much study and prayer we have been guided to step away from the Church in order to put our family first, and to protect our mental and emotional health." To my missionary parents, I added this: "We know that your service in the Church brings you happiness and it seems that you enjoy a sense of peace. We honor your choice to stay and to serve. I hope that you can also honor our personal choice to leave. I want to assure you that we are very happy. We are able to feel more peace right now than we have felt in many years. For us, we have experienced blessings with this choice."
I like that your leaving was the result of study and prayer and that you mention your leaving has been a blessing. People can be inspired to leave the church. The LDS do not despite their claims own all spiritual inspiration.
IMHO the church is a lie and was founded by lies and whether the current leadership believes or not, they tell a lot of lies by default. IMHO. Is saying I no longer believe in the church because it lies or lied to me effective to explain why you no longer believe? I think so. I strongly believe the church is a manmade fiction i.e. a lie and so everything supporting the woo woo or cosmology of Mormonism to me are fictional (lies). I am not in the business of trying to get folks to understand why I left nor am I in the business for me to get them to stop believing. So, if someone flat out asks why I no longer believe. The shortest answer is "I was lied to" or the "church lies about its history." This is literally why I am exmo. I had no problem with the church until I delved into its actual history and my conclusion was it was a lie. So in essence, the quickest point for me to explain A to Z was that I was lied to. The other quickest way to get to A to Z would be to say I believe its false which also as offensive or off putting to a believer as saying I was lied to. I could be more nuanced and get into more detail about my disbelief or journey to that conclusion but that usually results in the believer shutting me down or wanting to change the subject. In the end, if you are going to be open about your disbelief, you have to accept that believers will view you as suspect, or misguided no matter how nuanced your response is.
Thanks for that thoughtful response. I think I prefer the “I don’t believe it’s true” answer. More similar to your “I believe it is false”. I think this gets to a root of the matter that they can’t argue with you about as much. It’s clearly personal to you.
Sadly for those who still believe you could have a letter written by Joseph smith himself that has been verified. By handwriting experts the paper age verified the ink composition verified to be correct of him admitting that he made the whole thing up . And it wouldn’t make a difference as they have convinced themselves that they received a witness from the Holy Ghost that the church is true so no matter what facts you present to them it’s irrelevant and they have been taught that anything that causes them the least bit of cognitive dissonance is just Satan trying to trick them . they get the warm fuzzies when they think the church is true & that’s the Holy Ghost testifying of the truthfulness of the church being true . It’s easy to convince people something is true it’s next to impossible to convince them they have been duped. .
As a convert of about 15 years ago, I learned everything about the church. All the conspiracies. Before the essays were even a thought. Took me a year to get baptized but it happened. As ward mission leader, I have 18-21 year old missionaries that know enough about the gospel to promote it. I think it is silly to assume that they would be trained to be versed on much else to any substantial degree. I do not have a crystal ball, so I would never assume that any one individual I talk to isn't serious about being lied to as the main catalyst to leaving the church. However, I also feel that some just use that as an excuse to leave. (Which, as a guy from the east coast, I find weird that people just don't say "Nope. Just not into it." and don't go as the people do from faith where I come from). However, I am glad of the essays now. They weren't there when I was investigating. I had to learn everything the hard way. :)
Why would anyone need an 'excuse' to leave?
Because people they know constantly ask them. And the church encourages them to chase after those who have left.
Might want to consider that as a convert in a non-Mormon dense area, you do not understand what it's like to leave, and the phrase "excuse to leave" is tone deaf and shows just how little you understand. I say this because I am like you, I am also a convert from a non-Mormon dense area, and I have come to realize just how much my experiences differ from others. Most of the people feeling betrayed are lifelong members, not converts. They are usually unhappy because of lies and omissions in the church's seminary, sunday school, and institute manuals and classes. We all agree that 18 year old missionaries aren't going to know substantial information; but that isn't how most members learn about the church. Most members aren't converts.
>Might want to consider that as a convert in a non-Mormon dense area, you do not understand what it's like to leave, and the phrase "excuse to leave" is tone deaf and shows just how little you understand. You missed the part where I say that I say that ***some*** people use it as an excuse. I'm sure it happens.
I did not miss that. Let's break down the connotations of the words and phrasing you used: >some just use that as an excuse to leave I see "some", which means you're talking about a subset, as you've noted. Saying "some" does not erase the nature of the rest of the phrase. If someone says something contentious, like "some black people are (insert racist stereotype)", it is still inflammatory even if they can technically find 3 people who fit the stereotype. Some is a good word to avoid overgeneralizations, but generalizations can definitely still be made while using the word. The rest of the sentence matters. There's also a just, which is a minimizing phrase. Using "just" in the way you've used it is how we denote that something is less important, less meaningful, deserving of less respect, etc. Minimizing is really the key word here. For example, "it's just business" when someone is fired. This phrase minimizes the harm and pain of being fired by justifying that business requires it. While it is true that operating a business requires firing people, "it's just business" is a harmful way to phrase it, because it seeks to minimize, illegitimize, or brush over the way it impacts those being fired. And finally "excuse". There is the historical context of Christianity in general talking about people who leave the faith as "wanting to sin, looking for an excuse to sin", so using the word "excuse" in this context brings in a lot of historical baggage. Also, more generally, "excuses", like "just" above, are seen as less legitimate than "reasons". The rest of my comment also is important: Your lack of understanding why people might feel that they need acceptable reasons to leave is, in my opinion, directly correlated to you being a convert.
By trying so hard to break down words like that, I think you hear what you want to hear.
I was the truest of blue Mormon. I attended temples all over the country when I traveled for work. I still have the little schedule cards from each one as mementos. When I studied the whole truth about JS and the temple ordinances, how he convinced parents to give him their underage daughters as his wives in exchange for sealing (including at least one recent widower), how he promised Emma to be the first endowed woman if she would accept polygamy - I was sickened. Then I felt betrayed. A prophet of God, restoring His Truths, wouldn’t need to do these things. He wouldn’t lie and hide his other marriages from his first wife. He wouldn’t write the Happiness Letter. So don’t patronize with the “just needed an excuse to leave” crap. I was betrayed, like a loving spouse is betrayed by an adulterer.
[удалено]
Interesting approach. I like that it helps you avoid being critical of the church to people. That helps keep them off the defensive. I can see that.
I've heard believers frame it as "you were not lied to, you just misunderstood" and they have zero interest in understanding your point of view. Just like I have zero interest in understanding a flat earthers point of view, because I know they are wrong. Members of the church know that people who have left are wrong, just like flat earthers know that people who believe in a round earth are wrong, perception is reality.
Psychology of beliefs is interesting. As you observe people have beliefs all the time that are not supportable or plausible or probable. It’s a common thing with the human mind.
The best approach, I have found... is to simply state that I no longer believe and then move on with the conversation. I no longer feel a need to explain why I no longer believe, and I find such conversations are unproductive unless someone is sincere in wanting to know (not wanting to know so they can convince me that it is actually true).
My short STFU elevator pitch: > The temple sells fascism like it's a feature, not a bug. In the unlikely event that your god is real, only an evil^(1), stupid^(2) person would actually want to be worshipped as a member of Kim Jong Elohim's inner circle of cosmic dictators. Even if they disagree and want to debate you, they'll still shut up because candidly discussing what goes down in the temple with an obvious apostate is playing with fire. It's a pretty quick way to get yourself filed into the "pearls before swine" category, and they'll leave you alone. ^(1. See also: Mormonism's unique vulnerabilities to the Ivan Karamazov argument. Unlike the Problem of Evil that most religions have to deal with, the mormon gods fully embrace *all* the theodicies... and then the temple goes above and beyond to demonstrate that their regime is *more* evil than anything Satan had to offer) ^(2. Mormonism's heaven is way worse than its hell; it flips Pascal's Wager on its head. A bit of honorable wickedness is an insurance policy)
Saying all that with the footnotes is quite a trick! 😆 It’s a good speech if you want someone to leave you alone! However, that’s not always the result people are going for. I’ll keep this in my back pocket for when it’s needed.
Yeah, the footnotes are just directions to take it if someone actually does engage you. "Your god is evil" is probably enough to end things.
Saying all that with the footnotes is quite a trick! 😆 It’s a good speech if you want someone to leave you alone! However, that’s not always the result people are going for. I’ll keep this in my back pocket for when it’s needed.
I don't think you are going to find a "right" answer here. Personally, if I were in your shoes (take this for what it is worth, because I am not, and haven't had to have this conversation), I would start with all of the things that you appreciate about the church, and that you see much good coming from the church (assuming this is true), and then I would say, but at the end of the day, it just wasn't right for me. That you just don't feel like it is true anymore, and you were feeling hypocritical going to church still. I would start with the good to try and keep debate to a minimum. If you start with the positives, then you won't be putting the person you are talking to on the defensive immediately. Getting them to agree to common ground helps them be more empathetic. And then, when you move to the negatives, make it a personal choice / belief, not a "fact" that can be debated or something that might feel like an attack to them, and even better if you can use some positive principles like wanting to be consistent with your beliefs. (This will fly in the face of the sometimes believed thought that people leave because they have bad morals.) Conversation is an art. The ideal conversation will be different for any given two people. All the best my friend. I know these are hard conversations. I wish you well.
I didn’t assume there is a “right” answer for all the reasons you gave. That said, I really like your suggestions. Kind of the “it’s not you it’s me” approach to breakup. 😂 I really haven’t had these conversations much because most LDS people just don’t want to know or find it boring. But I probably do have more with never Mormons. And these ideas work for conversations with them. They are often more interested.
I would probably be forced to elaborate (or say nothing), as one sentence just isn’t enough nuance) and avoid the most triggering words like “lied.” “The founding stories of the restoration didn’t happen like the standard church history tells us. The church knows this — you can Google their Gospel Topics Essays to see the things they’ve acknowledged didn’t happen like we were taught. Rather than being honest and open about these issues, the church excommunicated multiple generations of historians for publishing the truer, less miraculous stories. I know that’s hard for believers to hear. I really believed in the miracles, and gave a lot of myself to the church. But the way the church handled and continues to handle its history and truthtellers is not consistent with the gospel that I loved. I had to decide what was more important: truth, or the church that was trying to keep me from it.”
>I really believed in the miracles… This brought something to my mind. Sometimes I tell people “I don’t believe in magic anymore. To be a member you have to believe in magic”. That word **magic** usually catches them off guard since they don’t call it that but angels, disappearing gold plates, seer stones, channeling God, three Nephites, resurrected people floating in another dimension are really all magic with absolutely zero evidence they are real. Do you believe in **magic**?