LDS/Mormons: A) Steve Young is retired from the NFL. Is he still a good authority on football?

B) Russell M. Nelson is retired from medical practice. Is he still a good authority on medicine? C) Jeffrey R. Holland and David A. Bednar are retired from Academic Administration. D) Lastly, many users on this forum are retired from Mormon beliefs. Are they still good authorities on Mormonism? Avatar: If the "exes" never really understood it to begin with, then who's to say that the "immediate source" (those still inside the Church) really understands it either? Do you not think it's possible for someone who "really understands it" to decide to leave?

Public Comments

1. i think your confusing retiring from age, and leaving a belief they never really understood to begin with. See unlike a detailed profession, you dont really have to know anything to be Mormon. You just have to be baptized. Not to mention the fact that a majority of the so called ex members online are downright lying about being members. ive caught several of these people myself. Apparently they think their anti mormon arguments are more persuasive if they pretend to be ex mormon. Unfortunately for them they havent studied it much and miss nuances any informed member or even non-member would notice. The real question is why would you trust an openly hostile source when it contradicts the immediate source? If you wanted to know about someone would you go see their ex wife and expect an accurate picture?
2. Agree with Avatar defender
3. Retiring from Mormon beliefs, now that's an interesting way of referring to someone that I believe the church referrs to as apostate? withdrawing from a position or a group does not negate the expertise they have acquired. One would assume that if someone "retires" from Mormon beliefs, it is because they have added some knowledge, academic or experiential, that caused them to rethink their position and make a life changing decision. Not an easy move in any case. All the accumulated knowledge is still there, so I would say that if they were authorities before they left the church, they are still authorities. 1. to withdraw, or go away or apart, to a place of privacy, shelter, or seclusion: He retired to his study. 2. to go to bed: He retired at midnight. 3. to withdraw from office, business, or active life, usually because of age: to retire at the age of sixty. 4. to fall back or retreat in an orderly fashion and according to plan, as from battle, an untenable position, danger, etc. 5. to withdraw or remove oneself: After announcing the guests, the butler retired. –verb (used with object) 6. to withdraw from circulation by taking up and paying, as bonds, bills, etc.; redeem. 7. to withdraw or lead back (troops, ships, etc.), as from battle or danger; retreat. 8. to remove from active service or the usual field of activity, as an army officer or business executive. 9. to withdraw (a machine, ship, etc.) permanently from its normal service, usually for scrapping; take out of use. 10. Sports. to put out (a batter, side, etc.). –noun Literary. 11. a place of withdrawal; retreat: a cool retire from summer's heat. 12. retirement or withdrawal, as from worldly matters or the company of others.
4. Are they still good authorities on Mormonism? No Jesus Christ is the true authority on Mormonism.
5. If you had only A,B and C, then the answer is "yes". They would have a basic understanding of the concepts involved in their respective fields. While there may be new developments in the areas of football, education or medicine, there would not be that many that were kept quiet. Since you threw in D as well, then to keep consistency, the answer must be "no" to all of them. The prophet may have made some new revelation that they wouldn't be a party of and thus they are not valid authorities (insert emoticon for tongue in cheek here) :,)
6. I'm an exmormon, and I consider myself an excellent source on Mormonism. I try to be fair in anything I say about the LDS Church on here, unfortunately there are many anti's and ex's that don't. Some of the ex-mormons probably have a good reason because they might have had a negative experience with they church. I joined when I was 16 after having studied the church for a year. I read everything about the church I could get my hands on. I attended every type of meeting at church and studiously took notes. I gratuated from seminary (class at church before school everyday), I attended Institute (college version of seminary), I took bunches and bunches of those classes. I went to the temple and took out my endowment. I think I am a very credible source. Even now as an exmormon I try not to discuss the things that go on in the temple because I DID make a promise not to, and I really always try to keep my promises. I think I am an extremely credible ex-mormon. It really pisses me off that some of the mormons on here (not all) simply assume that since I did so much in the church and now I'm ex-mormon, that means that either someone offended me or that I wanted to go lead a life of sin. Both are very far from the truth, I left because I realized it wasn't true. I even wanted to stay mormon after this realization because I loved the community of the mormon church and always loved going. After I realized it wasn't true, going to church didn't have the same effect on me, I felt like I was being a hypocirte sitting there while the speaker said things I felt were untrue. That is why I left. It was very hard to start over, I had to take a deep look at who I thought I was, what I wanted out of life, what I believed in...it was all very scary and new to me, and I would probably have been very depressed had it not been for a roomate I got shortly after who really was there for me and always had a shoulder to lean on and a box of tissues for those teary nights. My point here is that just because someone left the church doesn't mean they aren't a credible source on the church. There are many positive things about the church that a lot of anti's and ex's don't want to admit to, while there are also a lot of negative things that church members don't want to own up to either. Liesel.
7. It really depends on each person. I've met some active members of the church that I wouldn't consider "authorities" (I take it you mean knowledgable and trustwothy sources of information) I have a couple brothers that are completely inactive for a few years now. Neither of them seem to remember much of gospel doctrine anymore. There are some "reitred" Mormons on here that remain up to speed with church news, history, and doctrine, even if they've lost faith. And there are others that, like my brothers, tend to only remember the things they didn't like.
8. Religious beliefs and education are 2 totally different things. I'm retired from being a cheerleading coach, and yes I am still an expert up to the point that I retired. I do not know new things that have been acomplished in that area since I quit coaching and taking updated classes on training and safety. Same with all others above. Except maybe football. I'm a football expert because I keep up with the changes of the rules. But self-proclaimed "former" and "ex" Mormons are NOT experts because they have NOT kept up with changes. Besides, there are no "experts" in the LDS faith, especially those who do not practice it daily!
9. Yes, but they all retired from those fields due to age, not because they decided after decades that "it just isn't true" I would say a doctor who retires from medicine in order to practice Voodoo medicine is not a very credible figure. Find me the ex-Mormon who left because they just got too old to be doing home teaching anymore and maybe I'll listen. ;)
10. The answers for A, B, and C are they are not as good of authorities as they once were because football rules change, medicine changes, academics change. For question C the same applies. The church believes in continual revelation and therefore some things will change, So no, ex mormons are not as good of sources for Mormonism as current members.
11. He can't be any worse than Tiki Barber.
12. A) Steve Young is still a good authority on football. However, people like Barry Sanders and Robert Smith, running backs who left the NFL in their prime because of poor coaching and burnout, are rarely or never asked for their opinions. B) Russell M. Nelson may be. However a better example would be a famous pathologist who renounced the Hippocratic Oath to administer euthanasia: Dr. Jack Kevorkian. He renounced the Oath to focus on his own unaffiliated beliefs and is no longer recognized as a quotable pathologist. C) You didn't ask a question, but I could give a similar example. I'll skip it for brevity. D) Renouncing a belief and retiring from a career are two entirely different things. I was a Baptist for 17 years, but I doubt that anyone is going to seek me out for my insight as a renowned, quotable Baptist expert because I no longer follow that faith. However, when I retire from my fields of academics and information technology, I wouldn't be shocked to be asked for quotes on either of them.
13. A) no B) no C) no D) no A) Steve Young was never my favorite speaker so no B) Nelson no longer practices medicine so I go to a doctor who practices med. for advice. C) If I need advice on academic administration I go to my own college administrators -- Holland and Bednar are ill-informed about my schools and are out of that world enough for me not to go see them for this issue. D) I sustain authorities on LDS doctrine and leadership twice a year at General conference. I see no reason to call those outside of the church authorities when they no longer accept the spirit of revelation and order within the gospel of Jesus Christ found in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints. ---- All that having been said if: I wanted to sit and chat about 49er history -- Young would have an interesting point of view to listen to. I wanted to wax nostalgic about Pres. Kimball's heart surgeries -- Nelson's my first choice. I wanted to hear a few good stories about bizarre dress code violation on a BYU campus -- I'm talking to Holland. I wanted to hear funny stories about green jello with carrot shavings -- any former Mormon would likely due. Thanks, D
14. Hmm, I think if a member had to "retire" from Church activity because his or her health rendered him or her inactive, that is the only kind of authority I would trust. For example, my grandmother was not able to sit through church due to pretty much non-stop pain, she was not able to continue doing family history due to macular degeneration, she was not able to continue going to the temple because advanced arthritis made it impossible to even pick up a pencil to write at times. She was not able to read much even of a large print Book of Mormon, but she could still listen to it read to her. I would consider her an authority on Mormonism 100 times over before an ex-Mormon. Same goes for my other grandparents, before they died, anyway. Thanks for asking. Do you need a gummy bear.
15. If they can check the attitude at the door, sure. The thing is some former Mormons can say, you know I used to believe as you do, but I don't anymore. If it's still good for you, then fine, but it's not for me. While other former members get belligerent, and feel that anything that comes out of a Mormon's mouth is either a lie or the Mormon is to be pitied for what they've said. In my opinion I welcome the comments and questions from former members who can be respectful of my beliefs even though they don't believe the same way anymore. I can not respect the person who knows what I believe, and knows that there are certain things I can not talk about because I hold them sacred, then tries to belittle those things and talks about them very openly. The two groups of people still know what Mormons believe, so they are coming at it from a better place than someone who has only heard this or that, but the way they deliver what they are trying to say makes all the difference. You can be a good authority on a subject but because of your mode of delivery, loose all credibility. UPDATE: Now that I've read all the answers above me, I have to say that I would not trust them as a primary source of information, I hold to what the General Authorities of the Church much much more than I would a former member. But I have learned quite a bit about the church from former members here at YARS. Even some of the anti's have sometimes caused me to either think about an issue, or have been so anti that it actually strengthens my testimony. But mostly it's the former members who don't bash that have given me new information. For example the borderline anti who always winds up bringing up Mountain Meadows. After reading this month's Ensign article about Mountain Meadows I felt I handled the info about it much better because of what she has brought up so many times. A friend of mine had never heard of Mountain Meadows and the article struck her very differently.