The "Final Solution"?

[_harmony]

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'll do, but a GA, with some of your own analysis, would be better.

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.

It's always better to turn the Brethren's own words against them, rather than use an easily determined agenda. Unless, of course, you assume the ex/anti/non Mormons have done all the thinking and you yourself have nothing new to add.

[_Hoops]

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.)

So you're saying all of us should put you on ignore? Excellent.

[_Chap]

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.)

So you're saying all of us should put you on ignore? Excellent.

I think you may need to read my post again, and then see what yours implies if it is intended to refer to mine. You are probably not saying exactly what you intended to say.

[_Hoops]

I think you may need to read my post again, and then see what yours implies if it is intended to refer to mine. You are probably not saying exactly what you intended to say.

Exactly.

[_RayAgostini]

Hi, Ray,

I am wondering to what you chalk up the fact that it appears none of your old flock (the ward members when you served as bishop, that led to your financial quagmire) 'gives a damn'?

Is that because institutionally, the LDS Church implicitly teaches its members to eschew anyone that leaves the flock, even a past shepherd of it, despite the service that was given?

"Institutional" loyalty is not something peculiar to Mormonism. People who hold similar beliefs (or unbeliefs) tend to gravitate towards one another. Michael Shermer and Sam Harris are very unlikely to be "buddies" with Deepak Chopra, for example. It's just a fact of life. There are many who adhere to "secular dogma", who eschew association with those who have departed from the unbelief in anything associated with "the supernatural".

"Hardening of the categories" is not unique to Mormons, but over the years I have come across former Mormon "acquaintances" (not sure what else I can call them, because "friends" doesn't seem entirely appropriate), who have been very tolerant and non-judgmental. I suppose the best I can say is that they are "nice people", but friends? Perhaps in a loose sort of way (you say "hi" in the street every three years or so).

After I left the Church, I joined the NSW Rationalists Association, and it didn't take me very long to learn that unless you solemnly mouth their Holy Trinity of Freud, Marx and Darwin, with hand over heart, you were "not one of them".

In other words, "pot, meet kettle".

[_Darth J]

In summary, Ray posits that the internet is the Auschwitz of our testimonies.

[_why me]

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.

Marriages break up for many reasons and usually they do so for more than one reason. And that was my point. To reflect on one's failed marriage and attempt to find more than just one reason may be a good learning opportunity. Now I do think that if a spouse begins to leave the faith and becomes hostile to it, it may lead to a divorce. And I can see that has a prime mover toward divorce. But there may be other issues at stake too.

And liz, if a former devout catholic begins to leave the faith and the spouse is still devout and the other spouse begins to rail against the catholic church, I can see a problem on the horizon too. It has to do with growing apart over life choices. But is it the fault of the faith?

[_Yoda]

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.

Marriages break up for many reasons and usually they do so for more than one reason. And that was my point. To reflect on one's failed marriage and attempt to find more than just one reason may be a good learning opportunity. Now I do think that if a spouse begins to leave the faith and becomes hostile to it, it may lead to a divorce. And I can see that has a prime mover toward divorce. But there may be other issues at stake too.

And liz, if a former devout catholic begins to leave the faith and the spouse is still devout and the other spouse begins to rail against the catholic church, I can see a problem on the horizon too. It has to do with growing apart over life choices. But is it the fault of the faith?

It isn't the fault of the faith, but I can understand why one would resent whatever faith that is, be it Catholicism or Mormonism, as a catalyst for the problems.

[_RayAgostini]

And liz, if a former devout catholic begins to leave the faith and the spouse is still devout and the other spouse begins to rail against the catholic church, I can see a problem on the horizon too. It has to do with growing apart over life choices. But is it the fault of the faith?

This was largely a 1950s/60s, and maybe early '70s problem. Australia (and much of the world) was seriously divided by religion in that era, and some Catholics were unable to find employment in the "Protestant sector", and vice versa.

Views like those of B.A.Santamaria are now theological dinosaurs.

People these days don't separate or divorce "because of religion", except in very rare cases. Religion just doesn't come into it. That's not to say that religion isn't a catalyst, particularly in religions that insist on literalism, which Catholicism doesn't.

The chances of Catholics divorcing over "religious issues" these days, are about the same as winning lotto.

[_MCB]

Unless the Protestant party becomes extremely abusive to the point of calling the Catholic party a devil-worshiper, among other things.