The "Final Solution"?

[_harmony]

So, turning to the institutional aspect: it is a group of people with a set of rules. These rules include not drinking alcohol, coffee or tea, not using tobacco or illicit drugs, voluntarily providing service on a regular basis (primarily within the flock, accepting Sunday service callings), attending weekly meetings where the main object seems to be for various members to reinforce for other members why they continue as Mormons and otherwise exerting peer/social pressure in one's community, abstaining from self-stimulated sex and sex other than with one's spouse, having youth programs, paying 10% of one's income, etc.

Some people gravitate to that kind of structure.

As a very ardent, even adamant adherent to individuality, I find the institutional aspect of Mormonism to be an anathema to individuality and freedom.

Not everyone is as free-spirited as you, sp.

I think it is misplaced to attribute the fact that these people have positive attributes to earlier-life participation in the LDS Church, some as TBMs (others not).

I guess I'm not seeing your point here. Are you saying the church had nothing to do with these people's positive attitude?

I think that to truly measure the effect of the LDS Church on the culture in geographic areas, I think one would have to look to comparative sociology studies between fairly close locales, one with a significantly larger LDS population percentage than another, to be able to draw such conclusions. For example, southeastern Idaho (heavy percentage of Mormons) against northwest Montana (not far in miles, but very small percentage of Mormons by comparison). If there were statistically significant differences measured as part of a study between the two areas, and if those differences showed more socially positive behavior by those in the Mormon area (southeastern Idaho, for example) vis-à-vis the less dense Mormon population, then I think that one could then identify a set of positive social attributes that one could then ascribe to the LDS influence.

Not too difficult to do, since stats on things like teen pregnancy, smoking, drinking, etc are gathered by county.

[_why me]

Amen. They are products of their culture, and angry because their culture and scriptures can be so easily challenged.

Have you read Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins? All religions can easily be challenged and assulted by atheists. It is the easiest thing possible to challenge somones faith and claim that that faith is false.

[_why me]

This religion has screwed up my marriage and damaged family relations, so can I claim that I always motivated by righteous indignation? Sure can't. But I do try not to harbor resentment because it is not healthy. All I am saying is that this church deserves serious criticism and has done actual damage to innocent people.

Are you sure that it is the fault of the LDS church? Could your own behavior have some blame? It is easy to blame an institution for problems that we may develop.

The religion does not tell family members to be cruel to family members who have left. Just the opposite. And it doesn't tell women or men to separate from an unbelieving spouse. However, people can react to various situations differently.

[_Buffalo]

This post was made by why me who is currently on your ignore list.


Sweet bliss. :)

[_Yoda]

This religion has screwed up my marriage and damaged family relations, so can I claim that I always motivated by righteous indignation? Sure can't. But I do try not to harbor resentment because it is not healthy. All I am saying is that this church deserves serious criticism and has done actual damage to innocent people.

Are you sure that it is the fault of the LDS church? Could your own behavior have some blame? It is easy to blame an institution for problems that we may develop.

The religion does not tell family members to be cruel to family members who have left. Just the opposite. And it doesn't tell women or men to separate from an unbelieving spouse. However, people can react to various situations differently.

Do you ever think before you type?

Someone reveals a painful experience and you immediately point the blame back at them. Look, I am sure that Stormy Waters realizes that people are the root cause of marriages failing, and not the Church. However, from what he has told us, it appears that differences involving the Church were the catalyst of his marital strife.

And, frankly, I have found Stormy Waters' criticisms to be quite even-handed.

[_Shulem]

This post was made by why me who is currently on your ignore list.


Sweet bliss. :)

Amen to that. My final option (ahem) solution, was to put why me on the ignore list.

Toasted.

Paul O

[_Stormy Waters]

Someone reveals a painful experience and you immediately point the blame back at them. Look, I am sure that Stormy Waters realizes that people are the root cause of marriages failing, and not the Church. However, from what he has told us, it appears that differences involving the Church were the catalyst of his marital strife.

No worries, I haven't been around long, but I don't take Why Me seriously.

[_Stormy Waters]

This

This is also the presentation that he gave. He was a CES institute director and he explains it pretty well.

You couldn't find anything on LDS.org to support your statement? Good grief, there's tons of stuff there. You don't have to use adament ex-Mormons to
illustrate your point, and it weakens your point to use them.

Will Daniel C. Peterson do?

He [Stanley Kimball] spoke of three levels of Mormon history. Level A, he said, is the Sunday School version. Everything on Level A is obviously good and true and harmonious. Level B, however, is the anti- Mormon version of the same story. ...On this level, everything that you thought was good and true and harmonious actually turns out to be evil and false and chaotic.
He noted that the Church typically seeks to keep its members on Level A or, at least, feels no institutional obligation to bring them to a deeper level. Why? Because souls are lost on Level B. And, though Level C might be academically more desirable, it cannot be accessed without at least some exposure to Level B. Were he in a leadership position, he said, he would probably make the same decision.
Once members of the Church have been exposed to Level B, though, he said, their only hope is to press on to the richer, more complicated version of history that is to be found on Level C—which, he contended and I agree, turns out to be essentially, and profoundly, like Level A. The only cure for bad historiography is better historiography. The only remedy for bad anti-Mormon arguments is better counterarguments....
Not everybody needs Level C. But some do, whether because they are troubled by Level B or because they find Level A insufficiently nourishing in some way. Many good saints will live their entire lives on Level A, and they will be saved.

Also I don't think it's unreasonable to cite ex-mormons sources. Every one has their basis. Mormons tend to be biased towards the church. Non Mormons tend to be biased against.

[_Some Schmo]

Get rid of Mormonism. No more forums, no more discussions - just get rid if it, because it's useless to humanity. This is the message almost all of you convey here, that there's scarcely a single redeeming quality in "Joseph's baby". It should be wiped from the earth.

Anyone here disagree that the world would be better off without this blight on religion and humanity?

If you don't agree with that, you all coulda fooled me, and the amount of time you all spend here bashing Mormonism to kingdom come.

Better off? Certainly.

But just think of the wealth of potential comedy that we'd lose without religion in general.(Got to look at the bright side...)

Without that, yeah, it's pretty useless and mostly harmful.

[_Chap]

Non Mormons tend to be biased against [the church].

Yup. Personally, I have to confess that I'm really biased against leprechauns too, and the Tooth Fairy. Because I don't believe in either, I feel I must advise readers of my posts that my judgement on such questions has to be taken with a large grain of salt.

Only someone who thought the odds on the existence of either are 50/50 is entitled to be treated as having a sane and unbiased view. The only person worth listening to is someone with a completely open mind.

(You can check whether they have an open mind by checking whether you can see light from the left ear when you squint into the right ear.)