Another Anti-Mormon Who Just Doesn't Get It

[_Yoda]

Hi Liz,

I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts about the WoW with me. You made some interesting points for consideration.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You're welcome, Wade.

[_Sethbag]

It is of some comfort to be thought odd by the bizarre. It is kind of like being thought upside-down by the upside-down.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't think you're bizarre. You're just stuck in a worldview that has been constructed with the assumption that 1) the LDS church really is true, and that 2) all of the evidence that ought to show you the manmade nature of the LDS church has been rationalized away and made to be compatible with belief. These things have very serious, non-trivial consequences in terms of your worldview, and the way you evaluate and judge things that you come across in your experience with the world, your thinking, etc.

I know you won't actually believe a word I've said, so I will offer up an example of another set of people who are in their version of the same kind of thing. Hopefully you can see it in them, and realize that something similar just might be going on with you, and admit of the possibility. Most people can't see that, but there's always hope.

My mother-in-law is as dyed in the wool as it gets. My father-in-law died a little over four years ago, and a year or so ago my mother-in-law got remarried to an LDS man who is also as dyed in the wool as it gets, who was himself also recently bereaved. I was recently in a situation where one of my brothers-in-law came out as a no-longer believer to his family. Other family members were there, and my mother-in-law was really torn up about it.

In the conversation that came up between her, my step-FIL, and three of my brothers-in-law, she basically played the Satan card on him. That is, she said that he must have slacked off with the mantras and whatnot (my words, not hers) and thus put himself in the position of having Satan come in and cloud his mind. I stepped into the conversation and challenged her on this. I told her that it was A) very uncharitable, B) very offensive, and C) simply wrong for her to ascribe his non-belief to the cosmic powers of evil, ie: The Dark Lord.

I told her, and I told her for myself as well, that my BIL and I had both come to our conclusions after very serious and thorough examination and contemplation of the evidence. I told her that based on what I know, by far the most likely conclusion, in my opinion, was that the LDS church was a manmade institution, exactly the same as every other church out there.

Nope, it must be the Dark Lord. I can examine evidence, I can look at connections, patterns, explanations, likelihoods, etc., but it's not the rational conclusion based on examination of the evidence that has lead me and my BIL to our conclusions. No, it's an invisible bogeyman, the Dark Lord, yay, even Beelzebub, The Devil, Satan, Lucifer, Mr. Scratch, etc. Yes, I've read a lot, I've thought a lot, I've taken a good look around the world at how things seem to be, etc., but it's no logical and rational process that explains my unbelief, in the view of my MIL and step-FIL. No, it's the invisible bogeyman.

She cannot make sense of it in any other way. I simply cannot possibly go from having a really strong, deep testimony of the LDS church, to believing it's manmade and not literally true, for any reason other than that the Dark Lord of the Universe has gotten into my mind and clouded it up, and tricked me into thinking that.

Now this is obviously absurd. I will allow the remote possibility that a cosmic Bogeyman exists, and influenced my thinking, but the evidence that I see is otherwise. She cannot allow for this in any other way in her worldview. It simply does not compute.

The reason, in my view, is that the very value system and set of rules by which incoming data is processed, in her mind, is set up and reinforced through a lifetime of Mormon practice and thought-forming, to the point where "The devil made me do it" literally is the only explanation that makes any sense to her regarding my apostasy, and the apostasy of what is now four of her children, and one of my married-in sisters-in-law.

Can you see what I'm talking about? I'm not asking you to speculate on whether a rational examination of evidence really did lead to my apostasy, or whether you think the Dark Lord of the Universe really did invade my mind and destroy my testimony. I'm asking you to imagine and judge whether any possibility other than the Dark Lord even makes sense - at all. If it does makes sense to you, ie: if you recognize that it's possible that the good-faith examination of the available evidence can in fact make it seem more likely to someone that the LDS church is manmade, than that it's really true, then I ask you to consider my MIL's worldview, and how it is that she literally cannot comprehend any other explanation than the Dark Lord. What is it that causes her mind to be simply incapable of processing any other explanation?

And whatever it is that renders her incapable of even comprehending any other argument, imagine that something of a similar nature places limitations on the fidelity with which you are able to process information about the world as well. At least, imagine the possibility of such a thing, whether you think it's likely or not.

No Wade, I don't think you're bizarre, I just think you possess the worldview of a person whose mind is shackled by your particular brand of religious zealotry. If you've seen this kind of thing in JWs, muslims, Catholics, Evangelicals, and so forth, then just imagine the possiblity that there's a Mormon version of that sort of thing too - and that's what you've got.

[_Roger Morrison]

The prophet is as reliable as any other wise man of his generation. He's not the important part of that equation. The important part of the equation is the individuals. Too many people want to abdicate their personal responsibility and just follow the prophet. That way is fraught with pitfalls. Much better to rely on one's own personal inspiration than to rely on someone else's, especially someone who doesn't know you.

Harmony, YOU said all that needs to be said on the topic of Prophets... "Paternalism," in truth Prophets appeal to those still living with the need to have someone else make their decsions...
Roger
*
*

[_beastie]

Beastie, not that you need to be told this or are the least bit willing to listen, but on the off-chance...please...at all cost, do not take that frightful step and reach beyond the safe confines of your own thoughts by venture to consider alternative ways of reading what I said. In particular, protectively build an impregnible barrier to any clarifications from the author and broach no tolerance of anyone else who may get it...and all this so as to avoid the one thing that you may find most catostrophic to your way of thinking--i.e. that you are ever wrong.

Ah, well, I half expected you to reply in a manner that, once again, told me I wasn't intelligent. Instead you chose a different insult.

Let's cut straight to the chase of the post to which you were replying. Do you concede that your reply to me was meant to convey that I am not intelligent? A simple yes or no will do. I know you will be sorely tempted to find another way to insult me while responding, but I am genuinely curious as to whether or not you are capable of recognizing that your reply to me - on this very thread - did, indeed, assert I wasn't intelligent, and I fear that you will get lost in crafting another insult and forget to answer yes or no.

Do you concede that your reply clearly conveyed that I was "not intelligent"?

Wade, let me, probably vainly, help you understand how this post of yours reads. Since I, apparently erroneously, believed that your reply was at least partly connected to the example I had offered on this thread – the only example up to that point, by the way – I was not the “intelligent reader”, and that was my “chosen nature”. In other words, my “chosen nature” is not “intelligent”.

[_rocket]

Do you concede that your reply clearly conveyed that I was "not intelligent"?

Some comment could be made here about your continued interest in responding to and engaging Wade for some sort of victory. That doesn't demonstrate a whale of a lot of intelligence.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello,

Oh my. I just had an epiphany. Mr. "Rocket", or "Red Rocket", as it were, is homosexual! I could not understand his fascination with homosexuality as it were, but now it makes complete sense. I had no idea why he would constantly defend Mr. Englund, but... After a moment of Pure Intelligence flowing upon my mind, I realized, that Mr. Rocket is, indeed, as closeted as Mr. Englund. What a bizarre world Mormon apologists live in. What an existential crisis he must suffer. It will be interesting to see how his process unfolds...

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

[_rcrocket]

Hello,

Oh my. I just had an epiphany. Mr. "Rocket", or "Red Rocket", as it were, is homosexual! I could not understand his fascination with homosexuality as it were, but now it makes complete sense. I had no idea why he would constantly defend Mr. Englund, but... After a moment of Pure Intelligence flowing upon my mind, I realized, that Mr. Rocket is, indeed, as closeted as Mr. Englund. What a bizarre world Mormon apologists live in. What an existential crisis he must suffer. It will be interesting to see how his process unfolds...

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

I'm not sure I have ever defended Wade, once, my good macaroni friend. My post to Beastie ridiculed her for even spending time with him.

Thank you for calling me an apologist. I have never considered myself worthy of such an august title.

[_beastie]

Yeah, DocCam, I think you misunderstood rcrocket's point. I actually agree that if I were engaging Wade in the hopes of some sort of "victory" - such as a concession that he actually did say I wasn't intelligent, and then, on the same thread, turned around and denied doing so, while ironically accusing me of being incapable of admitting error - it would reflect poorly on my intelligence. While I have seen Wade, now and then, show the ability to recognize and respond meaningful to critics' points, it is fairly rare and requires a level of coddling for which I have no appetite. So, yes, an intelligent person would realize that I'm asking something of Wade he's probably not capable of giving - a concession that he was incorrect in insisting he never tells critics they lack intelligence.

But I don't really expect a victory of that sort. I don't expect Wade to be able to give something he's not capable of giving. I just like seeing how far Wade will go. It's part of my general curiosity of some of the more confounding traits of human nature.

[_wenglund]

No Wade, I don't think you're bizarre, I just think you possess the worldview of a person whose mind is shackled by your particular brand of religious zealotry. If you've seen this kind of thing in JWs, muslims, Catholics, Evangelicals, and so forth, then just imagine the possiblity that there's a Mormon version of that sort of thing too - and that's what you've got.

Hi Sethbag,

I appreciate you taking the time to explain your perception of me.

I found it interesting, though, the while you thought it quite uncharitable of your mother-in-law to not reasonably consider that your loss of faith may have been for rational reasons, but stareotypically ascribed it to Satanic deceptions, yet you seem to extend the same lack of charity towards me and my faith. You don't grant that my faith is a product of carefully weighng the evidence, but stereotypically ascribe it instead to me being "shackeled" by some religious bogey-organization.

For my part, I don't attribute loss of faith to Satanic influence, and I am more than willing to grant that the decision is reasoned-based. I accept that you and others have wieghed the evidence and reasonably come to your conclusions. I am pleased to extend to you the charity that you seem unwilling to extend to me in return.

Instead, I attribute loss of faith to good and decent people being distracted unawares by relatively insubstantial minutia and irrelevancing, and taking their eye off the real intents and purposes of the gospel.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

Instead, I attribute loss of faith to good and decent people being distracted unawares by relatively insubstantial minutia and irrelevancing, and taking their eye off the real intents and purposes of the gospel.

I think it takes a dogged determination to ignore or discount what exmormons actually say about their loss of faith to maintain the opinion expressed by Wade.

It's just another version of discounting why people lose faith - like they got their feelings hurt.