DiscussMormonism.com

stemelbow wrote:
But Buffalo indicated this isn't about knowing more facts, something I got confused about that too. He is saying "apostates" understand Mormonism better than current LDS do because they have had the same experiences and the same thoughts, not literally I guess, and have added to those experiences and thoughts. I don't know if I buy into it, though.

I think the group he is referring to have had the same kind of experiences and thoughts as most other members. I would add that those who no longer believe also have some new perspectives about Mormonism that most members who have always believed may not understand well if at all. It's actually easy to spot which members who do understand better as well as those who do not. Like others I guess I am also a NOM, but I only attend infrequently.

EA, liz, themis and spurven have outlined significant limitations with Buffalo's OP. A better argument for him to make would be one about the necessity of "critical distance" in order to more fully comprehend a subject, or see aspects of it hidden in daily practice. To build this argument he would need to create a conceptual model of "critique" which would account for the way individuals apprehend aspects of "reality" from cultural/social/ideological/whatever positions within it. Without that, there is no way to account for the existence of Juanita Brooks, for example.

Another way to make clear the difference between Buffalo's original post and what I've briefly outlined here, is that I am am arguing for a "theoretical" explanation, while he seems to be limiting his conclusions mostly to the experiential.

Since I don't think anyone has mentioned it, it's also worth pointing out to Buffalo that a substantial portion of the LDS population are 1st generation converts and thus have experienced more than one faith perspective in their life.

Buffalo wrote:It takes two separate perspectives to have depth perception. Being totally immersed in the Mormon faith and then being totally deprogrammed from it gives you that depth perception. A frog swimming in a shallow pool doesn't know how shallow the pool was until it leaves the pool and hops up into a tree and gains a larger perspective. Regardless of whether Mormons or ex-Mormons are right or wrong, it's the ex-Mormons who have a deeper, more complete understanding of Mormonism.

I would never claim to have known everything there was to know about Mormonism, but between the ages of 14-32 I was totally immersed and enthusiastically soaking up everything offered. I graduated from BYU, mission, temple, avid genealogist (driving across North America to gather information from county courthouses and cemetaries before the internet), participated in every organization available to my sex/age group.

At this point, I don't want to say how many years later, I know more about Mormonism than when I was a member, mostly due to reading internet groups like this one for more than a decade, which has led to a hearty interest in the issues of Mormonism. The kinds of issues that I had no way of knowing about before and would have put on the shelf if I had known. TBMs can claim that delving into those issues leads to one's downfall. I say they add to one's perspective. I totally agree that (generally speaking) apostates have a greater perspective and a fuller knowledge than TBMs. This is not speaking of the thousands who simply drift away every year. I'm speaking of people who know enough to feel confident in their apostacy as so many of us here do.

Another way of looking at it:

Everyone knows what it's like to be a kid, but a kid doesn't know what it's like to be an adult until he/she actually is one. Now the adult may not know what it's like specifically for every given kids situation, but the general knowledge of "being a kid" is experienced by each adult.

Redefined wrote:Another way of looking at it:

Everyone knows what it's like to be a kid, but a kid doesn't know what it's like to be an adult until he/she actually is one. Now the adult may not know what it's like specifically for every given kids situation, but the general knowledge of "being a kid" is experienced by each adult.

I think that's representative of the point I'm trying to make.

Redefined wrote:Another way of looking at it:

Everyone knows what it's like to be a kid, but a kid doesn't know what it's like to be an adult until he/she actually is one. Now the adult may not know what it's like specifically for every given kids situation, but the general knowledge of "being a kid" is experienced by each adult.

I was just going to say something like that. Thanks.

Additionally, Stem, think of it this way. Can you empathize with a tired cranky child because you've been there? Can you empathize with teenage angst because you've been there? In the same way we can empathize with TBMs because we've been there.

I realize we don't often come off sounding so empathetic :) but, yes, we've been there and we know how it is.

Buffalo wrote:I'd like to add that while I have "been" Stem, I've never been BC. Thank all powerful Atheismo for that.

Amen.

Buffalo wrote:I'd like to add that while I have "been" Stem, I've never been BC. Thank all powerful Atheismo for that.

Amen.

damn computer

Buffalo wrote:It takes two separate perspectives to have depth perception. Being totally immersed in the Mormon faith and then being totally deprogrammed from it gives you that depth perception. A frog swimming in a shallow pool doesn't know how shallow the pool was until it leaves the pool and hops up into a tree and gains a larger perspective. Regardless of whether Mormons or ex-Mormons are right or wrong, it's the ex-Mormons who have a deeper, more complete understanding of Mormonism.

What would you say of me, Buffalo? I was raised LDS, became apostate, and returned many years later? Do you have a deeper, more complete understanding of Mormonism than I? Would you also say that you can't know what love is until you've lost it?