End goal?

[_wenglund]

...and my "end goal" in participating here is to help improve relations between members and former members by focusing attention on the shared basic human needs to love and be loved and to feel worthwhile to self and others, and by proffering proven and constructive life strategies.

I do so recognizing, of course, that other participants here may have opposing "end goals", and may wish to see themselves as victims and/or are intent in spending their time here whinning, complaining, gossiping, and tearing others down.

This is true. Whenever I'm trying to improve relations between members and former members by focusing attention on the shared basic human needs to love and be loved and to feel worthwhile to self and others, I always feel the need to point out that nonmembers may wish to see themselves as victims and/or are intent in spending their time here whinning, complaining, gossiping, and tearing others down.

I mean, who wouldn't? Thanks, -Some Schmo-

I am not sure that acknowledging opposing "end goals" would be something everyone may "always feel the need to point out" (I know I don't--I may acknowledge it on rare occasions when it seems appropriate, but certainly not "always"). But, if that is how you feel, I can respect that. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Guest]

The falsehood of the church itself does not make me angry. What makes me angry is the obvious and willful arrogance and blindness of apologists who merely want to find ways to create doubt. Churches may be about faith but apologetics is about doubt.

I get angry at apologists because they have no interest in the cohesiveness of their polemics. No matter what the argument against their position is, their consistent answer is to try to create doubt about the argument. Then, when it is suggested that their entire faith is based on self-trust, they just ignore you or assert how they "KNOW" that they can't be wrong about their interpretation of a spiritual epiphany. They, in essence, declare themselves infallible with regard to that one experience because they know that all else hinges upon it.

I am glad that there is a board like this one where anger can be expressed sometimes. Some positions are only deserving of ridicule, not only because of their glaring unreasonableness, but also because the authors of those positions like to simultaneoulsy claim that they are being reasonable. They either are completely ignorant or they are willfully deceitful. I am very cynical about apologists and happen to believe that the majority of them are willingly deceitful and merely wish to have fun at defending their cherished culture. They are pugilists at heart and simply enjoy the fight.

Although I am not one who wishes to church to end all of a sudden, I do wish to see it end in the next couple of generations. I have active family members who are so deeply attached at the cultural level that they wouldn't care if all the claims were actually proven false. I nevertheless wish to maintain these relationships and so I go along for the ride the best I can.

This place gives me the opportunity to occasionally vent. I don't do it often but when I do I am channeling a lot of built up thoughts and ideas that I don't share with my local LDS relatives and friends. And sometimes I go for the throat, especially when I can tell that there is no getting through to some blatantly blinded souls.

The LDS people are very good people. My parents and sibs are great people and they are active LDS. My spouse is a great person and is active LDS. My children are becoming LDS although I seek to influence them to think critically about all ideas and positions--something I think most LDS don't do. Apologists like to think they do, but they don't.

Even anger has its season although, in my opinion, it should be used appropriately and not without restraint.

[_wenglund]

The falsehood of the church itself does not make me angry. What makes me angry is the obvious and willful arrogance and blindness of apologists who merely want to find ways to create doubt. Churches may be about faith but apologetics is about doubt.

I get angry at apologists because they have no interest in the cohesiveness of their polemics. No matter what the argument against their position is, their consistent answer is to try to create doubt about the argument. Then, when it is suggested that their entire faith is based on self-trust, they just ignore you or assert how they "KNOW" that they can't be wrong about their interpretation of a spiritual epiphany. They, in essence, declare themselves infallible with regard to that one experience because they know that all else hinges upon it.

I am glad that there is a board like this one where anger can be expressed sometimes. Some positions are only deserving of ridicule, not only because of their glaring unreasonableness, but also because the authors of those positions like to simultaneoulsy claim that they are being reasonable. They either are completely ignorant or they are willfully deceitful. I am very cynical about apologists and happen to believe that the majority of them are willingly deceitful and are merely wish to have fun at defending their cherished culture. They are pugilists at heart and simply enjoy the fight.

Although I am not one who wishes to church to end all of a sudden, I do wish to see it end in the next couple of generations. I have active family members who are so deeply attached at the cultural level that they wouldn't care if all the claims were actually proven false. I nevertheless wish to maintain these relationships and so I go along for the ride the best I can.

This place gives me the opportunity to occasionally vent. I don't do it often but when I do I am channeling a lot of built up thoughts and ideas that I don't share with my local LDS relatives and friends. And sometimes I go for the throat, especially when I can tell that there is no getting through to some blatantly blinded souls.

The LDS people are very good people. My parents and sibs are great people and they are active LDS. My spouse is a great person and is active LDS. My children are becoming LDS although I seek to influence them to think critically about all ideas and positions--something I think most LDS don't do. Apologists like to think they do, but they don't.

Even anger has its season although, in my opinion, it should be used appropriately and not without restraint.

Is stereotyping an appropriate use of anger?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_amantha]

The falsehood of the church itself does not make me angry. What makes me angry is the obvious and willful arrogance and blindness of apologists who merely want to find ways to create doubt. Churches may be about faith but apologetics is about doubt.

I get angry at apologists because they have no interest in the cohesiveness of their polemics. No matter what the argument against their position is, their consistent answer is to try to create doubt about the argument. Then, when it is suggested that their entire faith is based on self-trust, they just ignore you or assert how they "KNOW" that they can't be wrong about their interpretation of a spiritual epiphany. They, in essence, declare themselves infallible with regard to that one experience because they know that all else hinges upon it.

I am glad that there is a board like this one where anger can be expressed sometimes. Some positions are only deserving of ridicule, not only because of their glaring unreasonableness, but also because the authors of those positions like to simultaneoulsy claim that they are being reasonable. They either are completely ignorant or they are willfully deceitful. I am very cynical about apologists and happen to believe that the majority of them are willingly deceitful and are merely wish to have fun at defending their cherished culture. They are pugilists at heart and simply enjoy the fight.

Although I am not one who wishes to church to end all of a sudden, I do wish to see it end in the next couple of generations. I have active family members who are so deeply attached at the cultural level that they wouldn't care if all the claims were actually proven false. I nevertheless wish to maintain these relationships and so I go along for the ride the best I can.

This place gives me the opportunity to occasionally vent. I don't do it often but when I do I am channeling a lot of built up thoughts and ideas that I don't share with my local LDS relatives and friends. And sometimes I go for the throat, especially when I can tell that there is no getting through to some blatantly blinded souls.

The LDS people are very good people. My parents and sibs are great people and they are active LDS. My spouse is a great person and is active LDS. My children are becoming LDS although I seek to influence them to think critically about all ideas and positions--something I think most LDS don't do. Apologists like to think they do, but they don't.

Even anger has its season although, in my opinion, it should be used appropriately and not without restraint.

Is stereotyping an appropriate use of anger?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Is it?

[_karl61]

Dogmaster seems a lot like jskains -

Forgive me if I am wrong but Dogmaster - your posts seem a lot like another person who posted here a while back.

[_ozemc]

Sethbag:

I will pray for your soul; may God reclaim you.

The Church is true. The Father and the Son appeared to Joseph Smith. You're just one of the many God predicted would hold Joseph's name in derision -- as many others on this Board do.

So, you're telling me the God of the Universe, the one who created the star VV Cephei, which, if it was in the place of the sun, would reach to the orbit of Saturn, and who created a black hole at the center of our galaxy that is as big as 4,000,000 suns, actually visited a teenage boy in upstate NY in the 1800's? This same God, who creates galaxies that are 250,000 light years across?

You do know that the center of our own galaxy is about 26,000 light years away? That we don't even know what's happening there now, and are seeing light that started coming to us during the last ice age?

Man, have I got some land for you ... 100 miles East of Key West, Florida. Good ocean view.

by the way, I often hear that God has a body just like mine, made of flesh and bone. I have often wondered why, if He chose to actually take a form, would it be one so at odds with being able to move throughout the universe? We're a very new race. Why wouldn't He chose to look like, say, a race that's been around for 500,000 years? One that doesn't need oxygen to survive? Does God breathe in Heaven, anyway? If not, why does he need a nose? Does He eat? If not, why does He need a mouth, or stomach, for that matter?

I'm as familiar with the issues as you -- and more, much more. I've read it all; understood it all. But, I've also seen the miracle of the Church firsthand.

Your posts are all about "me." "Me, me me." You are here in a public place, cowardly anonymous, attacking a former belief system because of your vanity.

Vanity was the first sin and is the ultimate sin.

Which actually does fit in with arrogantly saying what you "know" to be true.

[_wenglund]

Ask yourself this. If you grew up a lifelong Jehovah's Witness, missed out on your chance to go to college because they emphasized church service and activity over education, were now stuck in a blue collar job when you'd had the potential for much better, that you'd given half of your life to an organization that you now realized was not only false, but which employed strong psychological and emotional tactics to keep people in line, wouldn't you be somewhat upset about that? Do you think some anger would be understandable?

Now substitute LDS in place of JW and the situation isn't all that different. The analogy isn't perfect, because the two organizations aren't exactly the same, but they're close enough for the purpose of these conversations.

Please tell me why you believe that anger is not understandable in a situation like this?

You cannot just throw off a small caveat such as "the analogy isn't perfect" and then run headlong into pushing forward a parallel between the two. This analogy doesn't come anywhere close to being an LDS scenario, in the first place.

Show me. Please demonstrate in what way the scenario of growing up in a faithful JW household, and being indoctrinated into that belief system, and then discovering as an adult later in life that it's not actually true is not at all comparable to the scenario of growing up in a faithful LDS household, being indoctrinated into that belief system, and then discovering as an adult later in life that it's not actually true.

Is the difference here, in your mind, that the JWs really aren't true, but the LDS really are, so of course it's all totally different?

In the second place, no one held a gun to your head. You were smart. You could study. You could reason. You made choices. You invested your money and time and you got benefits. Later you changed your mind. So what is the beef?

You're right. I am smart, I studied, I could reason, and I made choices. That process eventually overcame the indoctrination and conditioning of my mind, the shaping of my whole cosmology and worldview, and lead me to some truth about the LDS church, ie: that it's not actually true. And hence I no longer believe.

My beef is that this required effort on my part that I should never have had to have expended on something like this. There's no good reason why I should have been put in a situation where I had to spend years and years fighting through conflicts between the worldview I'd grown up with, and which I'd been taught to accept as true, and the objective reality of the world that clearly showed me cracks in that worldview, until in the end I could see that the worldview itself was a manmade fabrication, like so many others out there. My beef is that so many intelligent people whom I know personally are still stuck in this false worldview. Some of them are suffering because of it. I had a long talk with my sister recently, where I came away thinking that she's under a lot of mental stress because she knows there's something wrong with her religious worldview, but the cobwebs are so think, and the cords that bind her mind are so strong, that she's struggling to understand what's going on. She's very smart. She graduated #1 in her class from Yale a few years back and is perhaps less than a year from having her PhD. It's a crying shame that a mind like hers, and her PhD husband's, should be subjected to such false belief systems from the day they're born.

What ticks me off, in a way, is that someone like her is stuck swimming in a manmade mire of false beliefs, mythology, and superstition. Her powerful mind and intellect are literally hobbled by Joseph's Myth. And it shouldn't have to be like that. I see it as a fact of life that so many people in the world (almost everyone, really) are raised in false belief systems which fashion worldviews that render themselves nearly impossible to overcome. But I don't like it. It violates my innate sense of fairness.

And Charity, please, you were a 19 year old college kid when you converted. You were only an adult in the strictly legalistic sense. They handed you the Cool Aid, and you gulped it down by the gallon. You've given over your heart, soul, and mind, to a mythology. The church isn't true, and you are incapable of seeing that. You never will, because you have chosen not to, and fashioned for yourself over the succeeding decades a worldview which enforces itself at the most basic and fundemental stages of your thought processes, which ensures that you never will. The axioms and values built into your religious and philosophical cosmology prevent you seeing an ounce of truth in what I say, and even as you read these words you've never taken them seriously and you are merely thinking up what your response will be.

So, essentially you are "ticked off" because people believe differently than you. In other words, you are intollerant of other people's beliefs--specifically LDS.

...and to think that I have been led to believe that secularists were the champions of open-mindedness. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

The falsehood of the church itself does not make me angry. What makes me angry is the obvious and willful arrogance and blindness of apologists who merely want to find ways to create doubt. Churches may be about faith but apologetics is about doubt.

I get angry at apologists because they have no interest in the cohesiveness of their polemics. No matter what the argument against their position is, their consistent answer is to try to create doubt about the argument. Then, when it is suggested that their entire faith is based on self-trust, they just ignore you or assert how they "KNOW" that they can't be wrong about their interpretation of a spiritual epiphany. They, in essence, declare themselves infallible with regard to that one experience because they know that all else hinges upon it.

I am glad that there is a board like this one where anger can be expressed sometimes. Some positions are only deserving of ridicule, not only because of their glaring unreasonableness, but also because the authors of those positions like to simultaneoulsy claim that they are being reasonable. They either are completely ignorant or they are willfully deceitful. I am very cynical about apologists and happen to believe that the majority of them are willingly deceitful and are merely wish to have fun at defending their cherished culture. They are pugilists at heart and simply enjoy the fight.

Although I am not one who wishes to church to end all of a sudden, I do wish to see it end in the next couple of generations. I have active family members who are so deeply attached at the cultural level that they wouldn't care if all the claims were actually proven false. I nevertheless wish to maintain these relationships and so I go along for the ride the best I can.

This place gives me the opportunity to occasionally vent. I don't do it often but when I do I am channeling a lot of built up thoughts and ideas that I don't share with my local LDS relatives and friends. And sometimes I go for the throat, especially when I can tell that there is no getting through to some blatantly blinded souls.

The LDS people are very good people. My parents and sibs are great people and they are active LDS. My spouse is a great person and is active LDS. My children are becoming LDS although I seek to influence them to think critically about all ideas and positions--something I think most LDS don't do. Apologists like to think they do, but they don't.

Even anger has its season although, in my opinion, it should be used appropriately and not without restraint.

Is stereotyping an appropriate use of anger?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Is it?

What do you think?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Guest]

Sethbag:

I will pray for your soul; may God reclaim you.

The Church is true. The Father and the Son appeared to Joseph Smith. You're just one of the many God predicted would hold Joseph's name in derision -- as many others on this Board do.

I'm as familiar with the issues as you -- and more, much more. I've read it all; understood it all. But, I've also seen the miracle of the Church firsthand.

Your posts are all about "me." "Me, me me." You are here in a public place, cowardly anonymous, attacking a former belief system because of your vanity.

Vanity was the first sin and is the ultimate sin.

Remove the beam buddy.

The Church and all churches are utterly false. The "Father" and the "Son" appear as metaphorical archetypes. You're just one of the many people who hold to wishful thinking as a source of comfort and solace.

I am familiar with everything -- and more, much MUCH more. I've read every book ever written and I comprehend the UNIVERSE. But, I've also seen the miracle of critical thinking firsthand.

Your posts are all bout "you and your chosen ideology." "You and your chosen ideology, you and your chosen ideology, you and your chosen ideology." You are in a public place, boasting about the use of the label which your mom and dad gave you, bravely nominal, attacking those who believe differently from you because of your vanity.

Vanity is not a sin but it might make a lot of people think you are a jerk, which is not generally to your benefit.

[_moksha]

I am a somewhat active member of the church. Someone gave a talk about Mormon message boards. Then this whole topic came up at BYU. It seems strange people are so angry. Why are people so angry? Is there similar feelings from people who leave catholic methodist or even Islam? And is there an end goal? Do people here want the church to shut down?

I think of orthodox Mormon belief as somewhat like a egg. You believe so much in the egg that when cracks appear, you are devastated. Some are appalled by the substance inside the egg and will walk away. Some will yell and scream as they are walking. Others will deny the crack exists. Then there are those, who after some reflection decide to make something of the contents.

Anyone care for an omelet?