MILLIONS spent by LDS Inc on new MMM book

[_beastie]

Oh well, so much for my decision not to engage DCP anymore on this thread.

I know very well there are two sides to this story, DCP. The problem is that all apostates begin as believers who hear the "apostate meme" within the LDS church. It is a teaching that began in the Book of Mormon itself, before there was even an organized church, and it continues to be taught by its leaders at the highest level. When these same people leave the fold, they are automatically "on defense" because of their acute awareness of the "apostate meme" that predominates within the LDS culture and teachings. The new apostates know that their family and friends have also been exposed to this meme, and likely view their apostasy within that framework. The apostate, in turn, is defensive and seeks to explain why/how they lost faith, and how that loss of faith does not fit within the "apostate meme". These explanations often entail damaging information about LDS history or truth claims. The believers now feel personally attacked and react defensively. Apostates get frustrated and angry, and create their own "sheep meme" about believers. It's a vicious cycle.

The cycle has to stop where it begins, and it begins with LDS teachings. If LDS members were not taught the "apostate meme" to begin with, and just reacted to the exodus of members in the same nonjudgmental fashion that many other religions do, it wouldn't be creating these angry, defensive apostates in the first place. My family switched to different denominations within the protestant faith as I was growing up, and none of these churches taught that there was something inherently wrong, or even evil, about people who left their fold. It is normally "one true" religions that create angry, defensive apostates who, in turn, create their own "sheep meme", ensuring the cycle continues. People leave other religions all the time without this all this subsequent drama. It's not that the people are different somehow - it's the teachings of the religion about "apostates" that creates the drama.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Bagley claims that on July 26, there was an evening prayer meeting in Young's "upper room", and Eleanor Pratt's letter about Parley's murder was read aloud. He connects the reading of that letter to BY writing, in his journal, "we prayed for our enemies." (p 81)

And, in true Bagley fashion,praying for enemies means plotting and ordering a mass killing.

I expect vol. 2 to delve much further into Young's role.

[_beastie]

And, in true Bagley fashion,praying for enemies means plotting and ordering a mass killing.

I expect vol. 2 to delve much further into Young's role.

BY apparently thought the mass killing was part of the Lord's taking vengeance.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

And, in true Bagley fashion,praying for enemies means plotting and ordering a mass killing.

I expect vol. 2 to delve much further into Young's role.

BY apparently thought the mass killing was part of the Lord's taking vengeance.

Even if it is granted that BY saw the massacre as part of the Lord's taking vengeance it does not follow that thus Brigham ordered the massacre, or that given what he knew at the time he wasn't making a statement based on what he believed happened and why, but was wrong. I suspect that is something with which you agree.

[_beastie]

Even if it is granted that BY saw the massacre as part of the Lord's taking vengeance it does not follow that thus Brigham ordered the massacre, or that given what he knew at the time he wasn't making a statement based on what he believed happened and why, but was wrong. I suspect that is something with which you agree.

Yes, I agree it does not necessarily mean that he ordered the massacre, but the fact that he somehow saw the hand of God in it means that praying for one's enemies is not incompatible with involvement with the massacre.

Does the new book discuss BY's statement about the Lord taking a little vengeance with the massacre? I understand that, chronologically speaking, it ends with the massacre itself, but it seems a serious omission to not address this when dealing with BY's possible involvement.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Thirty whole pages of nothing!

The problem is that all apostates begin as believers who hear the "apostate meme" within the LDS church.

Just so you know, I think Dawkins's concept of "memes" is silly and without merit.

When these same people leave the fold, they are automatically "on defense" because of their acute awareness of the "apostate meme" that predominates within the LDS culture and teachings.

Just as commonly, in my experience, apostates are "on the offense."

That's a very common phenomenon with apostates from any group, and it certainly occurs in the case of Mormon apostates. (I submit much on this board, and very much on the so-called "Recovery" board, as Exhibits A and B.)

It's a vicious cycle.

The cycle has to stop where it begins, and it begins with LDS teachings.

I think it's simply ridiculous and patently false to suggest that "it all begins with LDS teachings."

It begins with human nature, and I cheerfully admit that apostate Mormons are at least as human as believing Latter-day Saints are.

It's not that the people are different somehow - it's the teachings of the religion about "apostates" that creates the drama.

It's the nature of the religious commitment that creates the drama. Leaving Methodism for Presbyterianism isn't a very consequential step. But leaving orthodox Judaism for Presbyterianism is. And so is leaving Presbyterianism for orthodox Judaism. It isn't that the religion necessarily passes on some sort of silly "meme." It's that consequential life-changing steps -- religious or not -- invariably create drama (at least, for humans).

[_Mister Scratch]

It's a vicious cycle.

The cycle has to stop where it begins, and it begins with LDS teachings.

I think it's simply ridiculous and patently false to suggest that "it all begins with LDS teachings."

[Snip!]

It's not that the people are different somehow - it's the teachings of the religion about "apostates" that creates the drama.

It's the nature of the religious commitment that creates the drama. Leaving Methodism for Presbyterianism isn't a very consequential step. But leaving orthodox Judaism for Presbyterianism is. And so is leaving Presbyterianism for orthodox Judaism. It isn't that the religion necessarily passes on some sort of silly "meme." It's that consequential life-changing steps -- religious or not -- invariably create drama (at least, for humans).[/quote]

I agree with both DCP and Beastie here, actually. I'm sure that some here will recall juliann's old favorite sociology-of-religion source, a book penned by a fellow named Bromley. In it, Bromley basically re-asserted what DCP is saying---i.e., the "nature of the commitment" is what results in the believer/apostate divide. Thus, the reason there is an awful lot of acrimony between apostates and believers has to do with the nature of the LDS Church itself. DCP can try and claim that this is "human nature," and I guess to a certain extent that is true. But, as is obvious from his post, this "split" happens more often within really hardcore, authoritarian religions such as Mormonism. If the LDS Church were less absolutist in nature, I think we would see less problems between believers and "ex-Mos".

[_beastie]

Just so you know, I think Dawkins's concept of "memes" is silly and without merit.

I don’t care what term you use, the idea is sound, which is that there are some ideas that become very entrenched and popular in certain groups of people.

Just as commonly, in my experience, apostates are "on the offense."

That's a very common phenomenon with apostates from any group, and it certainly occurs in the case of Mormon apostates. (I submit much on this board, and very much on the so-called "Recovery" board, as Exhibits A and B.)

I think it's simply ridiculous and patently false to suggest that "it all begins with LDS teachings."

It begins with human nature, and I cheerfully admit that apostate Mormons are at least as human as believing Latter-day Saints are.

It's the nature of the religious commitment that creates the drama. Leaving Methodism for Presbyterianism isn't a very consequential step. But leaving orthodox Judaism for Presbyterianism is. And so is leaving Presbyterianism for orthodox Judaism. It isn't that the religion necessarily passes on some sort of silly "meme." It's that consequential life-changing steps -- religious or not -- invariably create drama (at least, for humans).

You misunderstood my use of the word “defense”. They are defensive as to why they lost faith, and often seek aggressively to explain that process, and how it differs from the entrenched and popular idea about apostates in the LDS faith, which originated in the Book of Mormon. So yes, they go “on the offense”, but the reason they’re going on the offense in the first place is to explain and justify their loss of faith. The logical question is why the need to explain and justify their loss of faith exists in the first place. It certainly is not, as you later suggest, simply “human nature” that exists outside any reaction to any particular teaching of the group. I grew up in various protestant sects, and, along with some other siblings, completely disassociated from our last faith - the Methodist church – and declared ourselves agnostic and/or atheist. I would think that would constitute as drastic a change as converting to Judaism, and yet there was no severe reaction, in my family or our larger community of faith. In fact, my family is a great example, because we all converted to Mormonism later and I eventually lost faith in that religion as well. My parents’ reaction was completely different as Mormons than it was when they were Methodists. I don’t remember any sort of particular reaction to our loss of Methodist faith at all. Yet, when I left Mormonism, you’d think the world ended by their reaction. It took us years to get to a peaceful relationship over that, and it largely requires completely ignoring the religious question altogether. We’re all the same human beings, and atheism is quite different than Methodism. It wasn’t my humanity, or my parents’ humanity, that resulted in such a vastly different reaction to the loss of faith. It was Mormonism that changed their reaction.

This is just common sense. If you have a religion that teaches it is the ONE TRUE religion, and that only by its authority and faithfulness to its teachings will we return to our Heavenly Father and be united as a family again, if someone rejects that faith it will have entirely different repercussions than it will in the Methodist faith, which doesn’t teach such exclusivity. Add to that the teaching that apostates are sinful, proud, lazy (insert pejorative adjective here), and of course it’s a time bomb. Churches that do not teach “one true” and “evil apostate” paradigms normally do not have to deal with angry, combative exmembers. What do they have to be angry about? No one is teaching anything insulting about them or their loss of faith in particular, even if they’d rather it had not occurred.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Beastie, I think we're talking past one another.

But, truthfully, I just don't care much at the moment.

[Guest]

Your willingness to express yourself in this fashion is admriable in a certain sense. However, I think it is extremly naïve as well _ especially when spoken within the context of this message board. From what I have observed, there is little or no hope of diminishing the level of antipathy between the two parties. Sure, it's one thing to see Millet (and others of like mind) attempting to find *common ground* between Mormons and Evangelicals _ a situation where the differences are mostly at the doctrinal level. But the stakes of the contest between Mormonism and traditional Christianity pale in comparison to that between believing LDS and apostates.

I think you were reading a little too much into my statement. Understanding each other better does not mean joining hands and singing Kumbaya. We can remain in perfect disagreement with each other without sloppy kisses or daggers drawn. It is called civility, and one sometimes observes a certain civility between longtime enemies. Kinda like the gentlemanly behavior between Professor X and Magneto in the X-Men movies. I think this is not unreasonable to long for, if only because it's kinda classy, and it's not exactly like whistling Lennon's "Imagine" to myself.

In the eyes of believers, apostates are mostly despicable traitors who will stoop at nothing to discredit their former faith _ even using conciliatory language and tones as they systematically seek to undermine the faith of their former brethren. In the eyes of apostates, believers are deluded fools whose willingness to blind themselves to the *truth* is both worthy of denigration as well as probably threatening to societal progress in general. They are a cancer on the body politic. They must be eradicated. Almost without exception, that is the underlying attitude of most apostates who participate here.

More's the pity, I say. People simply take themselves all too seriously. You would think we were all omniscient deities, the way we rush to judgment in spite of our collective human ignorance.

So it is a battle to the death, as it were.

I personally wouldn't have it any other way. In the long run _ for believers _ there is no way to accommodate the apostate in the Kingdom of God. And for apostates, there is no way to accommodate the Kingdom of God in their world.

I think I'll sit out your battle-to-the-death fantasy. Thanks, but no thanks. I prefer extending the hand of friendship to extending the knife of maiming and death.