Anti-Mormonism = FAD

[_Runtu]

Yet, for some of us, part of growing has come from gaining peace through belief in a higher power. To us, that is a better place.

But, this is all beside the point that I was trying to make. To me, since we live in a world where certain "truths" (particularly those of a spiritual nature) are not definitive or readily determinable with absolute certainty, growth and peace comes by seeking out and traveling on various paths that reasonably appears to work best for us (functionally and epistemically), rather than by leaving a given path without having some other path of growth and peace to replace it. In other words, having a way that, to one's best assessment, though with various doubts and uncertainties, will lead one ahead, will serve one better than rejecting one's current path because of doubt and uncertainty, and having no path to travel at all.

To use another metaphor, it is like a 15-year-old determining that the public school system isn't "true" or that it doesn't work for him, and dropping out without having some other "true" or "workable" alternative.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

What if the status quo isn't postive or workable? Should you stick around anyway, or just get out of a bad situation and the look for some other way to go?

[_wenglund]

Wade, I see where you're going with this. The problem is that people are kind of stuck in a pickle because the only guidance they have is now known to be based on false premises and a false, virtual reality way of seeing the world. I'm not sure the best way for people to deal with this problem is to just stick with the church, because that's all they have. I think people who realize the church isn't true have just taken a step closer to really growing up, and looking around at the world, seeing their place in it, and coming up with a plan for what's next, is just something they're going to have to face up to.

The problem with the way this guy left the church, is that he didn't leave it because he knew it was not true. In a way, he fulfilled the cliché and left because he wanted to "sin". I say "sin" with scare quotes because in reality a lot of what he wanted to do I don't think is really sinful. But he saw it that way. In his worldview, he'd left the church, but recognized that his actions were sinful by church standards, and so he'd always be haunted by guilt, knowing that he'd left "the Truth" to go off and sin. That's not a very good way to live, IMHO.

His problem was that he never really understood that the church isn't actually true, and that the church's concepts of what is sinful or not are just their hot-air, personal opinions, and in no way reflective of some kind of cosmic reality. His second problem was that since he was still holding onto the church in some way, he really didn't, and couldn't come up with a good, positive, and meaningful alternative for his life's guidance. The church was always there in his mind, looming over him like an albatross around his neck. So in the end he did the prodigal son thing and went back to the only thing he knew.

I'm not sure I know exactly where I'm going to go with this knowledge for the rest of my life. I freely admit that I'm not settled onto a new path yet. I don't know how things will go. But I do know that the LDS church's path leads to nowhere, really. People on that path may be happy, but they aren't going to the Celestial Kingdom in the end. Their families really won't be together forever. They won't see their dead relatives again in the spirit world, or wherever. And there's no video camera in the sky recording their everything thought, their every deed, their every word, to be used against them at "the Last Day". Jesus isn't coming back. Gordon B. Hinckley doesn't talk to God. Neither does Boyd K. Packer, or anyone else. For that matter, we don't have to give a shyte what Boyd K. Packer thinks about anything. He's just one more self-appointed "special witness" to an imagined being who doesn't actually exist*.

I'm willing to come to terms with the world as it really exists, and figure out how to make my life as meaningful as I can. I'm not done with that yet, and I expect it'll be a long time before I am, if ever. I'm OK with that.

*speaking of Jesus Christ in his mythical role of God and savior of us all, not whether there ever was a real man named Jesus or not

I can see how you may see it that way given your current perspective. And, were your perspective a matter of fact or "reality", rather than a matter of personal opinion, then it may apply to the rest of us across the board. However, reasonable people can, and have, rationally come to a different point of view.

I can respect this diversity of perspectives, and I hope you can too.

And, while we may disagree with each other about the kinds of light of "truth" we may be shinning around in the epistemic darkness, wouldn't you agree that it is better to have some light, than for people to turn off the light they may deem "untrue", and have no light to shine at all?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Tpearl]

Sure, I'd agree with that. I think the difference is in your apparent belief that without the LDS church, there's nothing but darkness, whereas I look around, now with my outsider's perspective, and realize there's light all around me.

The LDS church's perspective is just one tiny drop in the ocean of possible perspectives had by people around the world. I find recently that I'm rather enjoying Richard Dawkins' perspective on things. He certainly doesn't know everything, but he has a way of expressing some things that I really like. He's certainly not ready to slit his wrists, go on a raping and pillaging rampage, or fall into a pit of despair and depression, despite not believing in God, and thinking that Joseph Smith was a charlatan and a mountebank. I really appreciate his words to the effect that hey, this life is all we get, and we're really, really lucky to have gotten it at all; let's appreciate it and make it the best we can. That means a lot to me.

[_Runtu]

Sure, I'd agree with that. I think the difference is in your apparent belief that without the LDS church, there's nothing but darkness, whereas I look around, now with my outsider's perspective, and realize there's light all around me.

I'm not sure it's so much arrogance as just the way church members look at the world. On the board that must not be named, I said that from my perspective, EVs experience God pretty much the same way Mormons do, although they use different vocabulary. I was told that EVs have a mere emotional connection, whereas LDS have something more, something deeper.

[_evolving]

And, while we may disagree with each other about the kinds of light of "truth" we may be shinning around in the epistemic darkness, wouldn't you agree that it is better to have some light, than for people to turn off the light they may deem "untrue", and have no light to shine at all?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade- for a good time click here http://zarahemlacitylimits.com/essays/undeception.html

"Each of us wrestles with the powerful forces to which we are subject and that distort our perception of reality. It is my hope that as we do so, we will find ways to become more "undeceived". I again note that this is different from finding "truth". I long since abandoned my hope of doing that. The best I can hope for is to gradually remove some of the things from my life that impair my ability to apprehend reality.

Hence, I do not suggest that I have come out of some kind of fog and now see things clearly. Rather, I express my humility in the face of powers far stronger than I am, confidence that I will continue to err on a regular basis, and hope that I will grope along in a generally healthy direction as long as I leave my mind open to new ways of seeing things.

My greatest wisdom is the confession that I lack it, and my knowledge that virtually all those who claim to be sure guides should not be followed. This attitude or worldview is, in my view, the greatest legacy I can pass on to my posterity. Someone to whom I once expressed this feeling wondered whether I would hire a guide to climb Mount Everest who had not climbed it before. I responded that of course I would not. And in a world without sight, I prefer guides who acknowledges blindness to those who confidently proclaim they know the way while plunging rashly ahead.
" ~Bob McCue

[_wenglund]

Wade's just saying what others have said many times before, albeit with fewer words: The church may not be what it claims to be, but it's still a great way to (fill in the blank, usually raise a family).

I am sorry, but once again I do not recognize the words you just put into my mouth. I happen to believe strongly that the Church is what it claims to be. However, unlike some, I am also capable of understanding and respecting differing points of view. My comments weren't self-referential, but I was speaking of those who may not believe the Church is all that it claims to be. To bad you failed to grasp that clear and significant distinction (which I find surprising for someone who is supposed to be training others on comprehension) while entirely missing the point.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

However, I am not sure that dropping the F-bomb on them, or perhaps putting your religious intolerance and judgementalism on display like you have to some degree here, will lend itself to that end.

ROFL. What was that quote about modern religion being reduced until it really stands for nothing anymore than not saying the word "f***"?

Did you get that quote from the profound thinker and secular culturalists, Snoop Dogg? ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Sure, I'd agree with that. I think the difference is in your apparent belief that without the LDS church, there's nothing but darkness, whereas I look around, now with my outsider's perspective, and realize there's light all around me.

As with Beastie, I don't recognize the words you just put into my mouth. I don't believe what you just claimed about me. In fact, I, like Joseph Smith, believe there are various sources of light outside the Church. In fact, much of my epistemic for understanding the physical world has been derived from secular sources. I have also learned much, spiritually, from other faiths.

The LDS church's perspective is just one tiny drop in the ocean of possible perspectives had by people around the world. I find recently that I'm rather enjoying Richard Dawkins' perspective on things. He certainly doesn't know everything, but he has a way of expressing some things that I really like. He's certainly not ready to slit his wrists, go on a raping and pillaging rampage, or fall into a pit of despair and depression, despite not believing in God, and thinking that Joseph Smith was a charlatan and a mountebank. I really appreciate his words to the effect that hey, this life is all we get, and we're really, really lucky to have gotten it at all; let's appreciate it and make it the best we can. That means a lot to me.

I certain wouldn't, nor have I suggested that Dawkins or anyone else is ready to slit their wrists, etc. because of disbelief. I wasn't even arguing against disbelief, and I happen to respect and value what you just intimated from Dawkins, and this even though I have an opposing religion view from him. So, I am not sure where all this is coming from.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

I am sorry, but once again I do not recognize the words you just put into my mouth. I happen to believe strongly that the Church is what it claims to be. However, unlike some, I am also capable of understanding and respecting differing points of view. My comments weren't self-referential, but I was speaking of those who may not believe the Church is all that it claims to be. To bad you failed to grasp that clear and significant distinction (which I find surprising for someone who is supposed to be training others on comprehension) while entirely missing the point.

Wade,

I know that you strongly believe the church is what it claims to be. You were speaking about people who doubt that, and suggesting they are better off sticking with the church that gives them a firm footing in guiding them through life, despite their doubts or even disbelief. It's better to stick with your path, regardless of your doubts, then have "no path at all". (whatever you imagine that means)

No matter how you want to dress it up, Wade, you're basically counseling that people who - unlike you - do not have a strong belief in the truthfulness of the church - should still stick with it because it's a good path.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Mormons are constantly taught that theirs is the one true church. They are taught it so thoroughly that they come to believe that they know it to be true. The underlying belief that they accept unthinkingly is that there is a one true church. So when they hear a suggestion that Mormonism is not the one true church, their natural reaction is very often, then which church is the one true church? They can't conceive of a God and a world in which there is no one true church, and that, quite effectively, keeps Mormons hobbled to their beliefs. That is what makes it scary to leave Mormonism without another one true church lined up to join. Leaving Mormonism isn't at all like throwing a slightly defective compass overboard on a cloudy night and having no means to navigate at all. It isn't like leaving one job without another lined up, and it's not like dropping out of high school. Leaving Mormonism opens up the rest of the world. Seek and ye shall find. It's all in the seeking, not in the "knowing." Seeking isn't as scary as some might think.

So back to the OP, I say yes, share your information, don't worry whether these kids have totally high-minded intentions or whether they just want to be cool. If they do just want to be cool, or if they just want to party, the more information they carry with them, the better. I'm kind of wondering, though, do they want to be anti-Mormons, or just ex-Mormons? I mean, are they planning to make a career out of this or just leave?

I have one nephew who left the church in his teens for no apparent reason other than he wanted to party, and that's all he's been doing ever since. He's only 22 and is about to go on trial for DUI. I'm very worried that he's actually an alcholic now. It's very likely that he'll hit bottom one of these days and go back to the church. If that saves him from a lifetime drinking problem, so be it, but I'd rather he'd left the church with some actual information that would help him find another way up from troubles that are the inevitable result of his current lifestyle.