? for TBMs. Do you cringe during gospel doctrine class?

[_guy sajer]

According to Shades's questionnaire -- I've worked my way through it two or three times, with the same result each time -- I'm a "Chapel Mormon," so I'm not qualified to answer this, I guess.

That's right, Dan abhors any typology that doesn't accurately explain 100% of the variation for every person in the target population.

He also abhors measures of central tendency, such as the average, that only broadly describe population characteristics.

Plus, in his steel-trap academic mind, there can never, ever be exceptions to any general tendency.

Inaccuracies are only permitted when they are committed by men speaking on behalf of God.

p.s. I thought that you were in Europe adding to your impressive list of countries visited, no doubt getting in touch with the innermost feelings and thoughts of rank and file members. What are you doing posting on the board?

[_SatanWasSetUp]

Maybe nobody here has experienced the type of lessons/comments I have. For example, is it difficult to listen to a lesson about Noah which teaches a global flood that wiped out every man woman and child on Earth except for the people on Noah's boat, and every species was gathered up and saved on Noah's boat? Based on the so called "Internet Mormons" I've read on these boards, that didn't happen. It was a local flood. Do you just let those comments go, and if so, I imagine it would be difficult not to correct such thinking.

Another example, and I witnessed this alot, was the lambasting of evolution. Most "Internet Mormons" believe in evolution, so how can you listen to it be ridiculed?

[_Scottie]

I can tell you that I was a head bobbing, apologetic swallowing chapel Mormon. I bought everything they threw at me, which shows you the power religion can have over someone.

I consider myself a VERY skeptical person. I believe in the motto, "Don't believe anything you hear and only 1/2 of what you see". When I was TBM, I questioned everything....except my religion.

I even questioned God, but then the extreme guilt came over me and I had to flush those questions back. But I never questioned the church. Weird, huh?

[_Dr. Shades]

A most excellent thread, SatanWasSetUp. I too would love to have some of our Internet Mormons chime in.

[_Some Schmo]

Well, I haven't been to church in over a couple decades, but I can tell you that I often cringe watching Big Love when they reenact some tidbit of Mormon lore or culture. Man, that can send a massive shiver down my spine.

by the way, Dan, I'm pretty sure that if I wanted to, I could test out to chapel Mormon on Shade's test too. Of course, I too would have to lie on the test to get it.

[Guest]

Thanks TD,

Yes, the distinction makes sense, however, having taught others in the Mormon church for many years, I know what Nehor is talking about. I enjoyed the feedback of members after class as well.

Now, here is something interesting. There were several things I would always do in my class:

1) I would condition the attendees that when asked to offer an opening prayer, that they would ask
that I would lead the discussion/speak the things that God wanted us to hear - not that I would do a
good job, present my material well or the way I intended to.

2) I would begin my classes with a testimony of things I had convictions of. Yes, my hero Smith
was mentioned, along with the Book of Mormon, modern day revelation, but most importantly in
my opinion, the belief in Christ and good news of the atonement.

When I began this way, more often than not, I found the class period would rarely follow the outline stressed
in the Q12 approved Godless manuals full of platitudes.

3) Though I even clashed on this point with the nice sister that taught the teacher preparation class (she
was always about connecting with students with crafts, props, a better floral design or silly questioneers
or making the lesson material interesting), my emphasis was always on the Savior, His ministry,
and internalizing His gift to each of us. I was going to make the 1 hour class meaningful from the inside out.

I literally knew when I connected with members of my class. The questions asked as well as their comments what lead most of us in the direction of deeper understanding of the attributes of a charitable and peaceful life and the change of heart that went along with it.

What confirmed this connection was that following the prayer (and generally going a little overtime) I would sometimes discover much of the class still sitting and pondering. Not much talk, just considering the unique and personally tailored sermon that enlightened them - not necessarily the one that came from my mouth . There was generally a very peaceful atmosphere which some equated as "the Spirit". This phenomenon could be witnessed in the 13 year old, EQ or the old fogey Gospel Doctrine class.

Now, I've wasted much of my time in church over many years being flogged by instructor/speakers that had little understanding who stuck with the material and just read it to us for the most part - many of whom unknowingly fit the M.O. of the Zoramites atop the Rameumtum (read it, it's the mantra of those that think the church is a social club Alma 31:12-35). I preached my own sermons as best I could in these circumstances, but in one ward, I began to go inactive because they began to become overwhelmingly anti-Christ.

Any way, my point is that it seems that Nehor has found a way remain within the church to receive the message that is generally not spoken out loud (regardless of the audible doctrine preached). And he returns home warmed and filled. That is a unique.. well .. gift.

(Once again, sorry for the long post)

[_Inconceivable]

..I consider myself a VERY skeptical person. I believe in the motto, "Don't believe anything you hear and only 1/2 of what you see". When I was TBM, I questioned everything....except my religion.

My senior companion quoted that statement to me when I was about 4 months out (after relating to him an experience I had before the mission). It blew me away. That never made sense then, but I understand a little better now.

[_Some Schmo]

That would be the whole Spirit thing. The best gospel teacher I ever knew said that the greatest thrill was when someone came up to you after the lesson and thanked you for showing them something that you'd never mentioned at all or even alluded to. At that point you know you're teaching the right way because the Spirit can take what you say and personalize it so that they get what they need.

This is actually a common function of the brain. All the information we process is done so through the filter of our own thoughts and experiences. It's the only framework we have to work with. A person could have a "spiritual experience" watching a movie if something in it addressed an issue that happened to be on the viewer's mind at the time. You could read ads out of the yellow pages and it could provide an epiphany for someone. Of course, the believer will claim that the spirit moved them to pick up the yellow pages.

And around and around we go...

[_Daniel Peterson]

Dan abhors any typology that doesn't accurately explain 100% of the variation for every person in the target population.

I have problems with a typology that doesn't even fit the supposedly clearest and most distinct examples of the types. If you really don't care whether models fit reality, that might explain a great deal about you.

I thought that you were in Europe adding to your impressive list of countries visited, no doubt getting in touch with the innermost feelings and thoughts of rank and file members. What are you doing posting on the board?

Here's a clue, O great-souled one: For narrowly tribal minds like my own, the English phrase next month, when used in August, indicates September. In order to refer to August during the month of August, a phrase like this month would need to be employed. I understand, of course, that things might appear very different from the perspective of someone who thinks that models can still be useful guides to reality without being even slightly tethered to reality.

[_guy sajer]

Most TBMs on internet message boards appear intelligent, understand the issues, but have figured out a way to make Mormonism work. For example, the limited geography theory which accepts the Behring Straight migration to the Americas. And most internet TBMs believe in evolution, a local flood for Noah, and a billions of years old Earth. So my question is directed at the so called "Internet Mormons." How can you stand to sit through gospel doctrine class, or any sunday church meeting where the "Chapel Mormons" teach a literal Adam and Eve, a global flood, and a Hemispheric model for the Book of Mormon? Your tongues must get bloody from biting them for three hours straight.

In answer to the question, "back in the days" I saw my purpose in church to be the resident gadfly, offering pithy, well-timed critical observations, correcting simple-minded comments; raising more troubling issues, etc. It dawned on me, after a bit, that nobody got up on Sunday morning and said to themselves, "Boy, I'm excited, I get to go to Church today and listen to Guy Sajer pontificate on how simplistic we are all." I was speaking up for my benefit without caring what the other members wanted or needed, and it was selfish of me. I concluded that what they wanted from the experience was in many cases quite different than what I wanted, and I was probably in the minority. Who was I tell sit there every Sunday and criticize their simple faith?

So, I quit, and for the last 4-5 years of my church attendance, I stopped saying anything. I went dutifully, skipped out on Sunday school every Sunday and priesthood meetings as much as I could without drawing too much attention to myself (I was still at BYU), and when I did attend, I read a book, magazine, or graded papers and tried to ignore all the religious silliness assaulting my sense of reason and decency.

That said, it was very, very difficult at times to resist myself from standing up and screaming, "You have got to be s******g me!"