What Are Your "Beliefs" (the Most Active Commenters)?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I am not hostile toward either religion in general or Mormonism in particular. I tend to focus on what people do, as opposed to what they believe.

If I wasn't so afraid to speak my mind on this board, I would tell how much I appreciate and value many of your posts.

A grown man is afraid to post his thoughts on a discussion board.

[ceeboo]

Thanks Ceeboo,

That was my general impression as well after lurking on the other Spirit Forums, and so I was wondering if that was just my perception or not; so thank you for sharing your perspective.

You're welcome.

So I was just trying to figure out if I could share some alternative points of view in the "exmormon community" on how to interpret "Mormonism" in a pragmatic humanistic kind of way for those who are open to that option,

If you are interested in these types of discussion, I would suggest that you try it. Who knows what will happen unless you go for it.

In fact, last time I posted in the other forums I was essentially ganged up on from my perspective and asked at one point to "join us," the atheistic far-Leftist club, or I would continue to be slandered and misinterpreted, straw manned, and insulted.

While I do not have very much personal experience in this particular forum, it is my understanding that the things you speak of are not allowed - So, I guess you are good to go.

Which I consider disappointing and sad because I don't believe that every exmormon is going to think and believe alike. And many might prefer to at least absorb different points of view, but the loudest voices are just too eager to attack and slander and be bigoted. And so I'm not gonna join that toxicity for the sake of my mental health: meaning it makes me sick to my stomach, or angry, which then makes me irritable which isn't healthy for those around me in real life.

Bold mine.
I agree 100% - ex-Mormons (just like any other group of humans that we try to neatly place in a category) are not all alike. Humans are not just very complex creatures - they are individual complex creatures with various experiences.

As far as my bolded portion goes - In short, It is not a numbers thing, it is a volume thing.

[ceeboo]

If I wasn't so afraid to speak my mind on this board, I would tell how much I appreciate and value many of your posts.

A grown man is afraid to post his thoughts on a discussion board.

I wonder how many people on planet earth, besides you, took me seriously.

(One of the LOUDER voices has entered the building)

[Free Ranger]

A grown man is afraid to post his thoughts on a discussion board.

I wonder how many people on planet earth, besides you, took me seriously.

(One of the LOUDER voices has entered the building)

To Ceeboo,

It is interesting psychologically to watch in real time my point get proven. This attitude directed at you is the same attitude I experienced among some majority loud-voices in the Utah-based LDS Church. I would say I can't speak my mind at Church freely without feeling stifled and the devout Mormon would say "No one is stopping you." Basically gaslighting me and ignoring reality. Or "You just can't handle the rules, you left because it was too hard for you." Basically saying only real men can handle being Mormon. Like I said, same personality type in both groups. Basically proving my point. Human types are predictable that way.

[ceeboo]

To Ceeboo,

It is interesting psychologically to watch in real time my point get proven.

Yep!

This attitude directed at you is the same attitude I experienced among some majority loud-voices in the Utah-based LDS Church. I would say I can't speak my mind at Church freely without feeling stifled and the devout Mormon would say "No one is stopping you." Basically gaslighting me and ignoring reality. Or "You just can't handle the rules, you left because it was too hard for you." Basically saying only real men can handle being Mormon. Like I said, same personality type in both groups. Basically proving my point. Human types are predictable that way.

If I may: Don't make the mistake of believing that Cam is a fair and accurate representation of an entire group of people - this community included. While it is true that Cam has an extremely loud voice (and really seems to enjoy using it) he is but a single voice. Listen to all voices (even the soft-spoken ones) before you form your own opinions.

[Free Ranger]

To Ceeboo,

It is interesting psychologically to watch in real time my point get proven.

Yep!
[...
If I may: Don't make the mistake of believing that Cam is a fair and accurate representation of an entire group of people - this community included. While it is true that Cam has an extremely loud voice (and really seems to enjoy using it) he is but a single voice. Listen to all voices (even the soft-spoken ones) before you form your own opinions.

[/quote]


Yes, I agree with you. Thank you for the advice, which I will practice.

[High Spy]

A grown man is afraid to post his thoughts on a discussion board.

I wonder how many people on planet earth, besides you, took me seriously.

(One of the LOUDER voices has entered the building)

Frogs Rule.

[Res Ipsa]

Hy FR


I am a Bible believing Christian - I am a never-Mormon - After years spent on these boards learning about Mormonism (and hearing the personal experiences of Mormons who were willing to share) I lost my interest in Mormonism. Due to this, I spend very little time reading these Mormon related forums. I spend most of my time reading/posting in the three "Spirit" forums. So, given that, the following is my personal perspective concerning the "Spirit" forums.

For the most part (there are always exceptions) the most active commenters are, at best, not very tolerant of thoughts/worldviews/beliefs that stray from a political left worldview. At worst, clear examples of blatant and open bigotry is quite common. Perhaps worst of all, as I see it, bigoted posts very rarely (never?) get challenged by anyone who happens to belong to the same tribe. Imagine that.

Just my take.

Thanks Ceeboo,

That was my general impression as well after lurking on the other Spirit Forums, and so I was wondering if that was just my perception or not; so thank you for sharing your perspective.

As I've explained elsewhere, I was an atheist for many years and have reconstructed a non-orthodox pragmatist Christian faith-stance through the perspective of John Shelby Spong and Marcus Borg who allowed me to explore Christianity as a non-theist, which led to my reading others like Tom Holland, author of the book Dominion: that led me to appreciate Christianity for changing our culture for the better. Then I reconstructed a way to be a kind of "Heritage Mormon" if you will, or what I call Emergent Mormon on my blog at http://emergentmormon.blogspot.com/, meaning I treat Mormon Scripture like a Catholic treats the Apocrypha, just a few extra scriptures I treat as allegory and mythos while respecting my Mormon Heritage but rejecting the Orthodox Brighamite sect (Utah-based LDS Church). I go into more detail on my blog at:
http://emergentmormon.blogspot.com/

So I was just trying to figure out if I could share some alternative points of view in the "exmormon community" on how to interpret "Mormonism" in a pragmatic humanistic kind of way for those who are open to that option, because quite frankly, I just got bored being in a reactionary, angry state and just debunking for years; and so reading these other ways to be Christian I started to ponder if one could apply those methodologies to Mormonism, and to my surprise I found that you could. But now I am realizing that like with many things, middle ways and moderate views are often hated by the extremists. Orthodox Mormon Apologists of course detest my views because I reject the historicity of the Book of Mormon, etc., but the seemingly majority voice of atheistic Leftist-leaning exmormons don't like my view because it dares to focus on the positive and find some utility in Mormonism philosophically through the pragmatic methods of John Spong, Marus Borg, Joseph Campbell, etc. At least that "closed-mindedness" has been the reception so far among most in the exmormon community so far.

In fact, last time I posted in the other forums I was essentially ganged up on from my perspective and asked at one point to "join us," the atheistic far-Leftist club, or I would continue to be slandered and misinterpreted, straw manned, and insulted. Which I consider disappointing and sad because I don't believe that every exmormon is going to think and believe alike. And many might prefer to at least absorb different points of view, but the loudest voices are just too eager to attack and slander and be bigoted. And so I'm not gonna join that toxicity for the sake of my mental health: meaning it makes me sick to my stomach, or angry, which then makes me irritable which isn't healthy for those around me in real life.

This ultimately means that those who are open minded, and curious are not given the opportunity to just learn about alternative points of view in the other forums as it becomes an echo chamber, which again is very sad. It actually kind of reminds me of Orthodox Mormonism and the way Brighamite leaders like the late Bruce R. McConkey and Boyd K. Packer and current Dallin Oaks like to handle alternative views. It seems like the same personalities that want to control things and attack in orthodox religions, are the same types of personalities that like to control things and attack in nontheist communities. Human nature and personality theory is consistent that way.

Speaking only for myself, I'll try and answer your questions as best I can. I read one of your blog posts in which you set out your reconstructed Mormonism. First, Congratulations. It sounds like you've constructed a belief system that works for you. It sounds like you are happy with it, and it doesn't sound as if it leads you to justify harming others. Orthodox Mormonism didn't work for you. Angry atheism didn't work for you. So, you constructed something that does work for you. Not everyone is able to do that.

I'm not surprised at all that your construction is attacked from both flanks: "that isn't real Mormonism" and "it's still Mormonism and Mormonism is bad." Unfortunately, it's what people do. Personally, I think what you've done is exactly what everyone does: constructs a personal philosophy or belief system out of different ideas. Every Mormon constructs a version of Mormonism. The range of constructions tends to be narrower because both the leadership and membership actively police the boundaries of Mormonism. But I've talked to lots of Mormons about their construction of moronism and I've never found two identical versions. I don't see you as doing anything different than what I do: construct a philosophical or belief system that works for me. Mine simply doesn't include a God.

I'm always interested in how fellow humans construct something that makes life work for them. The variety of takes that people have on life, the universe, and everything is fascinating to me. But, I find those discussions work best when folks take the attitude: here's something that works for me. If you find something helpful in it, cool. If you don't, cool. So, going in to a discussion of your Mormonism, I think you have to ask yourself how emotionally invested you are in having other people accept your ideas. If you are confident that you've found something that works for you, those loud, aggressive voices should roll off you like water off a duck's back. I suspect you will always face some harsh criticism of your ideas, simply because they are heterodox. If that causes your stomach to hurt or to feel angry, maybe spend some time exploring why that is.

This place can be a pretty harsh place to discuss ideas. From time to time, I find myself feeling the same kind of anger and frustration you describe. I've learned that the best thing to do is take a break and recover my balance. I like this forum, but not more than I value my mental and emotional health. In terms of reaction here, you probably won't be criticized by orthodox Mormons, because few hang out here. There are folks here that, in my opinion, view Mormonism as an absolute "evil" and will react harshly to the notion that there is any value in a reconstructed Mormonism. There are folks here who feel similarly about religion. You have to have a pretty thick skin to post here, especially if you have strong emotional attachment to your belief system.

If you decide to discuss your ideas, I recommend doing so in the Celestial Kingdom, where disrespectful communications are not permitted. If you think someone has violated the rules of the forum, just report their post and continue without engaging. Keep in mind that you really can't control what others post and the folks here are smart enough to see through badgering and bullying. Besides, you're talking about something that works for you -- nobody's words can change or threaten that. And you might hear some criticism that that helps you modify your belief system in way that works even better for you.

From time to time, folks with heterodox Mormon beliefs wander in here to preach and share their new truth. That always goes badly. Just as an example, I have zero interest in hearing the 5000th lecture on why I shouldn't be an atheist. I've never been an "angry" atheist and I make no claim that atheism is superior to theism. My personal philosophy works just fine for me and doesn't harm anyone else. So, while I find your reconstruction of Mormonism interesting (although I don't pretend to fully understand it because I haven't read some of the authors whose works you build from), I don't see anything there that appeals to me. If that doesn't make your stomach hurt, you and I at least could have what I think would be an interesting discussion (at least for me. ) But if you're emotionally invested in having other accept your reconstructed Mormonism, in my opinion discussing it here (even with me) is likely to be bad for your emotional and mental health. Maybe mine, too.

[Free Ranger]

Thanks Ceeboo,

That was my general impression as well after lurking on the other Spirit Forums, and so I was wondering if that was just my perception or not; so thank you for sharing your perspective.

... meaning I treat Mormon Scripture like a Catholic treats the Apocrypha, just a few extra scriptures I treat as allegory and mythos while respecting my Mormon Heritage but rejecting the Orthodox Brighamite sect (Utah-based LDS Church). I go into more detail on my blog at:
http://emergentmormon.blogspot.com/ ...

... This ultimately means that those who are open minded, and curious are not given the opportunity to just learn about alternative points of view in the other forums as it becomes an echo chamber, which again is very sad. It actually kind of reminds me of Orthodox Mormonism and the way Brighamite leaders like the late Bruce R. McConkey and Boyd K. Packer and current Dallin Oaks like to handle alternative views. It seems like the same personalities that want to control things and attack in orthodox religions, are the same types of personalities that like to control things and attack in nontheist communities. Human nature and personality theory is consistent that way.

Speaking only for myself, I'll try and answer your questions as best I can. I read one of your blog posts in which you set out your reconstructed Mormonism. First, Congratulations. It sounds like you've constructed a belief system that works for you. It sounds like you are happy with it, and it doesn't sound as if it leads you to justify harming others. Orthodox Mormonism didn't work for you. Angry atheism didn't work for you. So, you constructed something that does work for you. Not everyone is able to do that. ...

... This place can be a pretty harsh place to discuss ideas. From time to time, I find myself feeling the same kind of anger and frustration you describe. I've learned that the best thing to do is take a break and recover my balance. I like this forum, but not more than I value my mental and emotional health. In terms of reaction here, you probably won't be criticized by orthodox Mormons, because few hang out here. There are folks here that, in my opinion, view Mormonism as an absolute "evil" and will react harshly to the notion that there is any value in a reconstructed Mormonism. There are folks here who feel similarly about religion. You have to have a pretty thick skin to post here, especially if you have strong emotional attachment to your belief system.

If you decide to discuss your ideas, I recommend doing so in the Celestial Kingdom, where disrespectful communications are not permitted. If you think someone has violated the rules of the forum, just report their post and continue without engaging. Keep in mind that you really can't control what others post and the folks here are smart enough to see through badgering and bullying. Besides, you're talking about something that works for you -- nobody's words can change or threaten that. And you might hear some criticism that that helps you modify your belief system in way that works even better for you. ...

... So, while I find your reconstruction of Mormonism interesting (although I don't pretend to fully understand it because I haven't read some of the authors whose works you build from), I don't see anything there that appeals to me. If that doesn't make your stomach hurt, you and I at least could have what I think would be an interesting discussion (at least for me. ) But if you're emotionally invested in having other accept your reconstructed Mormonism, in my opinion discussing it here (even with me) is likely to be bad for your emotional and mental health. Maybe mine, too.

Thanks for your input,

You (Res Ipsa) wrote:

"I find those discussions work best when folks take the attitude: here's something that works for me. If you find something helpful in it, cool. If you don't, cool."

That is exactly my attitude. I just talked to my brother who is an atheist and engineer and exMormon (though he was never active in LDS culture/activities except as a child), and we had a civil and respectful "give and take" of my views on politics and my reconstructed pragmatic "spiritual" views, just yesterday and we just sought to understand each other while the other "goes their own way." He knows I am not trying to convert him. He knows I am experimenting with a worldview that is currently working for me, but it doesn't for him and that's fine. So I don't mind aggressive pushback, I grew up with all brothers and so aggressive give and take is normal for me. I also then discussed my views with my devout LDS dad yesterday as my views conflict with his regarding religion; and because he would prefer I was a garment wearing literalist believer like him, we constantly argue back and forth, but never disrespectfully. So, it's not aggressive push back I detest, it's the mob mentality of say five posters all coming at you in bad faith, intentionally misrepresenting you, slandering you, straw manning you intentionally, that is what I take issue with. But an assertive argument against my views themselves is perfectly acceptable. As I type this I just had a debate at a coffee shop with some gentlemen who pushed back on some of my political opinions in an assertive yet respectful manner face to face, and they actually led me to reconsider my opinion on a few things. They were slightly more "conservative" than me in this case. So it is about an online "toxic cultural dynamic" that causes my "stomach to hurt or to feel angry," as you put it summarizing me. I don't like bullies and bad faith actors nor extremist ideologies because as hurt people they thrive on hurting people, and so as a normal human being that toxicity will affect me negatively on at least an unconscious level, or irritate me unnecessarily which spills over into my personal life as their unhealed-pain-vented-at-me-transfers-into-me-bubbling-over-to-my-loved-ones. In other words, their toxicity irritating me can affect say my tone or patience level with loved ones that day after being slandered and bullied by a mob of extreme ideologies, and so I will not roll in the mud lest I get muddy. I am not a Buddhist monk who can just meditate their toxic nastiness away like I'm on a Zest soap commercial, "You're not fully clean till your Zest fully clean!" lol, ... as it muddies my psyche and every other normal person. Lurking on here and other exmormon boards I know I am not the first person to describe this phenomenon. It was not this bad five or ten years ago, which is a whole other subject.

If I am being respectful and acting in good faith then I expect the same on the grounds of common human decency, especially here in the "celestial forum." I was bullied in middle school, which I shared in my story recently here viewtopic.php?f=3&t=157768 , so I immediately recognize bully behavior when I experience it; when I encounter bullies in real life I confront them. But on a forum a bully often hides behind the screen and can recruit others and lacking face to face accountability, a kind of psychopathic-like persona can develop and an othering of you dehumanizing you takes place, and then mob thinking can take over and I and/or others become the scapegoat of all their pain and hatred. Because on a forum there is not the same accountability as in real life, so that then hurt people who can't handle a good faith discussion/argument will go for the juggular over screens and slander, straw manning, manipulative tactics, name calling, etc., which is why for now I intend to stick in the celestial forum.

I totally respect your atheism. I was an atheist and/or agnostic for nearly 20 years so I know where you are coming from. I just had a series of changes of opinion overtime as my ideas changed. For me the arguments just got better in makimg a case for spiritual pragmatism in just the last five to ten years.

You saying my views don't appeal to you does nothing to make my stomach churn or get angry. You can say that "makes no sense," that is a non sequitur (does not follow) and I will either be convinced by your point or we can agree to disagree.
So by my emotional health is only referring to bad faith actors who are toxic bullies and are slanderous, insulting, mean spirited, lacking conscience, extremist political ideologues, and intentionally straw man you, twist your words and demonize you with the same vitriol as a Louis Midgley, etc. Emailing back and forth with Louis Midgley years ago made me feel this way too by the way, he was a self-righteous bully and bad faith actor and I considered him toxic too. I hope that clarifies things.

[Gadianton]

"that isn't real Mormonism" and "it's still Mormonism and Mormonism is bad." Unfortunately, it's what people do. Personally, I think what you've done is exactly what everyone does: constructs a personal philosophy or belief system out of different ideas.

middle ways and moderate views are often hated by the extremists. Orthodox Mormon Apologists of course detest my views because I reject the historicity of the Book of Mormon, etc.,

]So I was just trying to figure out if I could share some alternative points of view in the "exmormon community" on how to interpret "Mormonism" in a pragmatic humanistic kind

I think the extreme left on this board is open to "pragmatic" Mormonism, if only for the fact that the New Maxwell Institute does the very same thing that Free is talking about, and the anti-apologists on this board root for the New MI against the apologists, and so if I were a pragmatic Mormon encountering folks on this board telling me that my beliefs were "bad" (in the moral sense), I would go to Google and find something similar published by the New MI and force the critic to say something bad about the new MI. "middle way", pragmatic, postmodernist, or existentialist interpretation of Mormonism or religion almost always bring the practitioner to the political left and so in general, it would be strange for an extreme leftist on this board to find moral fault with a person advocating Mormon pragmatism, which generally includes tolerance and inclusion. However, I can think of two main exceptions to this.

1) At least half the time, Mormon pragmatism is really just a bizarre rebranding of Mormon fundamentalism. At BYU, in a phil class I took, a fantastic teacher in terms of lecture quality explained enthusiastically, that Kierkegaard's ideas are "right there in Alma 32!" And then for the next set of lectures, on Nietzsche, this teacher had another professor come in who specialized in Nietzsche, and he enthusiastically taught the depths of which Nietzsche can help us understand the gospel of Jesus Christ and be better Christians. Superficially, this approach does liberalize belief including being more inclusive of others. But in reality, it's repackaging Mormon fundamentalism for two reasons.
--a) All of these reactions to philosophy undercut traditional ideas about certainty, and cue DCP, religion can be another category of knowledge that science doesn't have access to. Science can be a religious institution filled with fundamentalists at heart and so on, these theories become a epistemic protection for religious belief so that critics can't prove them wrong. It's part of the battle for ultimately being right.

--b) Kierkegaard was a devoted Christian, but harshly critical Christian culture. Nietzsche is much less friendly to theology, but Mormons point out that Mormonism isn't theological, and doesn't contain the corruptions of Greek philosophy, and that Nietzsche rightfully held Christianity in contempt while the restoration fixes all of these criticisms. So it's a backhanded way of proving themselves right. Also, by finding the Book of Mormon filled with existentialist philosophy, it's just another "how could he (Joseph) have known!" argument. In other words, look at all this deep contemplation in Mormon scripture; therefore, Mormonism must be true! Look at mfb over at FAIR, all he talks about is nuanced belief and pragmatism ala Wittgenstein, yet, he's a total obnoxious zealot for traditional Mormonism.

2) I've pointed out more than once that while we give a pass to the new MI for offering a more tolerant Mormonism, if folks were to read the fine print, it's pretty nutty stuff. Few if any on the extreme left here arrived where they are at by studying philosophy. Inclusivity as a result of postmodern investigations into religion is the right outcome, but getting from point A to point B might be incomprehensible and uninteresting for most, and so someone who comes onto the board getting really technical with pragmatism and related subjects could encounter resistance simply because the participants are either unfamiliar with these kinds of arguments or think these arguments lack merit. A pragmatist usually arrives left but not always, and there are other ways to arrive left aside from pragmatism.

I have the opposite history of free. I started out, beginning with that class I mentioned, as "middle way" Mormon hoping to save faith and interest in the faith by postmodernist enlightenment, but that lasted maybe 3-4 years max and I ended up as a basic atheist (not new atheist).