Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The atonement theories? A biblical case can be made for all of them.
i agree, but one has to get with other "scholars" and start talking for that to come out, the point being that a new believer, reading the Bible for themselves, led by the Spirit, might not ever get such (superfluous, imo) doctrine.
Actually, I didn't. , but thanks for your inaccurate assumption and for showing anyone who reads this post the kinds of behavior former Mormons can expect from actively believing Mormons. Had I actually served a mission, that would've probably hurt. I know many Ex-Mo RMs who regret their missions very much, but that's not my story.
Okay, if you didn't serve a mission, I apologize for thinking that you had. I got that impression from something you wrote a couple of years ago, that pretty strongly implied that you had. In your thread about the CES letter you said:
Quote:
Essentially this is a letter written by a Mormon, like myself, who was born in the church, attended an LDS church university, served a mission, married in the temple, and then after all this decided that historically speaking, it's all made up.
Apparently, the similarity between you and the author of the CES letter ends with you both being Mormon, but I'm sure you can understand why I was led to believe otherwise.
Quote:
I went inactive at 17 due to a bad experience I had as a teenager, yes - I was "offended", but I still believed it. This was a poor reason to leave a church, but I was 17, what did I know? I went on believing it from 18-23 and "living in sin", but after college I began actively attending a "YSA ward" (meat market, strictly for single Mormons 18-30) in SLC. I was very active, I "repented" for my "sins", and held callings from 24-26, It was here where I met a nice woman, a returned missionary, and we agreed to marry. I attended the temple for the first time at 26 - a necessary precursor to marriage within Mormon circles. What I did do is have a discussion with my fiance about how I couldn't go through the temple endowment again - at least not for a long time. She was fine with this. We married in the temple, and after recovering from my trauma, I attended the endowment twice more. Once as I was losing belief, just to see if I could "feel the spirit" (I didn't) and the second time, once I had fully lost belief, to view it as an outsider. Today she's a non-believer too, largely thanks to the November policy blunder of not allowing little kids of gay parents to be baptized.
Your story is interesting. It's very similar in some respects to my son's. I don't know how old you are, but I'm guessing you're five years or so younger than he is. (He is now 36.) I'd say he left at 15 1/2, shortly before he would have been ordained to the office of priest. I don't think he really believed much of it once he became a teenager. Every Sunday started out with a huge argument because he didn't want to go to church. Finally, my husband and I talked to the bishop about it and he advised us to not force him, to let him stay home if that's what he wanted. So we did. We told him he didn't have to go any more and he didn't. He messed around with alcohol and drugs (pot) for a while, got arrested for doing graffiti and shoplifting. He met a Catholic girl, fell in love and they moved in together. My husband and I weren't thrilled about them living together, but by then he was in his 20s and I figured it was his life.
He and I were talking once, when a friend of his was on a mission. This friend didn't belong on a mission. Not only was he not really living his religion, but he didn't believe it any more than my son did. He didn't even go just to please his parents. He went so that the girl he'd fallen in love with would marry him. Bad decision. At that time, my son said to me, "You know, I would have gone on a mission if you and dad had wanted me to, but I wouldn't have believed what I was teaching." I answered that I was glad that he hadn't gone. As much as I wanted him to believe, I wouldn't have wanted him to go for any other reason than that he wanted to. I had always tried to raise my kids to have integrity, and going on a mission for your parents or a girl would be hypocritical. I told him how much I loved him and that he needed to let his own conscience guide him and not just go along with what people told him to do.
Last year, a couple of weeks after the November policy came out, he called me and told me he was very strongly considering having his name removed from the records of the Church. He hadn't attended church for 20 years by then, so I don't know why it bothered me that he'd want to make the break official. It did, though. I'm glad we were having the conversation over the phone because I wouldn't have wanted him to see how hard I was crying. I didn't want him to know I was, but he could probably tell, even though I was trying to keep my composure. He said, "I just can't be a part of an organization that would do that to little kids." I told him I totally understood, and I did. The policy change was really hard on me, too, and I've never come around to thinking it was the right thing. I reminded him of what I'd told him when he was growing up -- that he needed to live his life with integrity. I told him that if he did what he was thinking about doing, it wouldn't change one bit his dad's or my feelings towards him. He answered that he hadn't finalized his decision, and was still thinking about it. He didn't want to hurt me. I told him that, even though I'd feel bad if he chose to officially leave, I'd understand and that he needed to do what he needed to do to feel good about himself. It's been almost a year, and he has never mentioned it again. I don't know if he ever went through with it or not. But we are as close as we ever were, closer by far than we were during his turbulent teenage years. By the way, he still believes in God, but like you, has no use for organized religion. As a matter of fact, one Sunday back when he was just four years old, he came to me with what he thought was a great suggestion. He said, "Mama, how about today, instead of going to church, we just stay home and think about Heavenly Father?"
My daughter is also inactive. She probably hasn't been to church in at least 15 years. She has made quite a few choices that a "good Mormon girl" wouldn't make. But we are still as close as we ever were. Neither of my kids appears to have a major chip on their shoulders over having been raised LDS. They have simply moved on with their lives and realize that bad-mouthing the Church, its leaders and its members isn't going to improve anything in their lives. I know how they feel about the Church, and they know how my husband and I feel about it. It hasn't become a source of bitterness and animosity between us. I wish you could have that with your family. It's hard for me to guess (and none of my business really), how much of your disgust with the church and its members is truly justified and how much isn't. All I can say is that I know it's possible for families and friends to remain close after someone leaves, and it's so much better for everyone that they do.
By the way, we don't talk about the specifics of LDS doctrine over on the Salt Lake City and Utah forums, but you have probably at least noticed that I am not really typical of most of the Mormons you know. That's why I describe myself as "not your average Mormon." I, too have issues with the Church -- not with the doctrines, though, but with the policies. I march in Salt Lake City's Pride Parade every summer with "Mormons Building Bridges." (My kids attend the parade and cheer when they see me coming down the street towards them.) I am a strong advocate for the LGBT community. Even as a Mormon, I think Salt Lake City's liquor laws are stupider than stupid. I could go on and on and on. I have my own reasons for staying, and believe me, it's not because of the social aspect of the Church. I am actually more comfortable with non-Mormons than I am with Mormons a lot of the time. A few years ago, when you started posting on the Salt Lake City and Utah forums, you said a few things that made me think, "Wow! This is a Mormon I can actually relate to!" I feel bad that our "relationship" has changed over time and I wish it could be the way it was before you had to include negative crap about the Church in roughly 70% of your posts. I still acknowledge your expertise in the areas where you excel and have learned some interesting facts from you. I just wish you could let the animosity go.
The only gods that need blood to appease their wrath are the ones found in jungles that are worshiped by Stone Age tribes who sacrifice their children to these gods---remarkably, like the Hebrews of 4000 years ago, speaking of the devil.
imo this misrepresents God, Who dwells in heaven, which we seek to see on earth. Those gods, Molech et al, are naturally going to try and imitate God, so that is where that comes from imo, but to suggest that no blood is required for sin is likely the same as saying "sin can live in heaven." None of us has yet resisted to the point of shedding blood, so that should be grasped as well imo.
And yet after all that soul-wrenching trauma and the huge epiphany you had, you still served a mission. You tried to encourage as many people as you could to join that cult. You wore your little missionary badge on your lapel and carried your broken moral compass in your pocket. That's really messed up, you know.
lol, i did this, for a couple years--you guys remember the "I found it!" thing? Yerg, was i brainwashed.
I actually like Mormon's concept of a person going on to become a god and having a wife and ruling a universe of his own. I think the serpent was pretty cool when he said to Eve, "You will become as god..." I'd like to have my own universe to run. I'm a failed Mormon initiate.
well, we are to be like gods, but i can't help but be minded of Bender's experience being absolute ruler, lol. Stating that one would like to run things in a sense advertises its own naivete. Iow--since that won't be read the way i mean it--it displays a desire for absolute power, the most troubling part of ego imo. Not that i don't indulge in it myself.
imo this misrepresents God, Who dwells in heaven, which we seek to see on earth. Those gods, Molech et al, are naturally going to try and imitate God, so that is where that comes from imo, but to suggest that no blood is required for sin is likely the same as saying "sin can live in heaven." None of us has yet resisted to the point of shedding blood, so that should be grasped as well imo.
bbyrd, it has been pointed out innumerable times that religions much earlier than Jewish-ism used blood sacrifice as a means of appeasing their gods' anger. Just about every culture under the ancient sun required blood sacrifices of one form or another. Now follow me carefully on this:
wrathful god -------> fed blood -------> blood satisfies wrath
This is as simple an equation as x + 2 = 4
All the tribes around Israel fed their gods blood sacrifices. Is it surprising Israel picked up on the same practice? They varied it a little in not requiring humans, likely because they were a small tribe in numbers and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you're sacrificing all your young virgin maidens to your god you're going to go extinct pretty quick. Maybe that's why Jews are still around today while all the others went extinct.
So you see it has nothing to do with other religions imitating yahweh. It's the other way around. It was yahweh imitating gods older than himself but making a major adjustment to the ritual for self-preservation reasons.
i agree, but one has to get with other "scholars" and start talking for that to come out, the point being that a new believer, reading the Bible for themselves, led by the Spirit, might not ever get such (superfluous, imo) doctrine.
bbyrd, it has been pointed out innumerable times that religions much earlier than Jewish-ism used blood sacrifice as a means of appeasing their gods' anger. Just about every culture under the ancient sun required blood sacrifices of one form or another. Now follow me carefully on this:
wrathful god -------> fed blood -------> blood satisfies wrath
This is as simple an equation as x + 2 = 4
All the tribes around Israel fed their gods blood sacrifices. Is it surprising Israel picked up on the same practice? They varied it a little in not requiring humans, likely because they were a small tribe in numbers and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you're sacrificing all your young virgin maidens to your god you're going to go extinct pretty quick. Maybe that's why Jews are still around today while all the others went extinct.
So you see it has nothing to do with other religions imitating yahweh. It's the other way around. It was yahweh imitating gods older than himself but making a major adjustment to the ritual for self-preservation reasons.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, but thanks for your inaccurate assumption and for showing anyone who reads this post the kinds of behavior former Mormons can expect from actively believing Mormons. Had I actually served a mission, that would've probably hurt. I know many Ex-Mo RMs who regret their missions very much, but that's not my story.
