Apostates understand Mormonism better than Mormons

[_Blixa]

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?

I think your example highlights some of the problems with Buffalo's OP since it depends on "experiential" perspectives and seems to suggest, the more the better. Following that logic, you are indeed at an advantage over someone with only the first two experiences you mention. I'm pretty sure that's not what Buffalo wants to argue.

[_Buffalo]

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?

I'd say we're probably on equal ground, all things considered.

Yes to the question on love.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

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?

I think your example highlights some of the problems with Buffalo's OP since it depends on "experiential" perspectives and seems to suggest, the more the better. Following that logic, you are indeed at an advantage over someone with only the first two experiences you mention. I'm pretty sure that's not what Buffalo wants to argue.

Here's where we have to fall back on the TBM argument. GR33N never had a real testimony of apostacy. They can't argue with that one!

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

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?

Mightn't you have a better understanding of what it is like to lose love if you've lost it yourself? (just trying to equalize the analogy)

[_Buffalo]

[

Here's where we have to fall back on the TBM argument. GR33N never had a real testimony of apostacy. They can't argue with that one!

Nice way of turning that one around!

[_Nightlion]

But I have greater perspective because I've been both firmly inside and firmly outside, and I can see from within and from without.

What bothers me the most about modern apostates is that they sound fishy in the way those contemporary with Joseph Smith sounded unrealistically overboard in their characterizations of The Prophet. Most of those in former days were never Mormon. And when I hear the same spin on Joseph that those old pukes spewed I think it is so much 'crab grabbing' refusing to allow one man to rise up to forbidden heights above his fellows. That is envy. I think most of atheism is envy too that will not allow for the possibility that something might exist that so overwhelmingly eclipses their enormous opinions of themself.

[_Buffalo]

But I have greater perspective because I've been both firmly inside and firmly outside, and I can see from within and from without.

What bothers me the most about modern apostates is that they sound fishy in the way those contemporary with Joseph Smith sounded unrealistically overboard in their characterizations of The Prophet. Most of those in former days were never Mormon. And when I hear the same spin on Joseph that those old pukes spewed I think it is so much 'crab grabbing' refusing to allow one man to rise up to forbidden heights above his fellows. That is envy. I think most of atheism is envy too that will not allow for the possibility that something might exist that so overwhelmingly eclipses their enormous opinions of themself.

[_LDSToronto]

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?

I think your example highlights some of the problems with Buffalo's OP since it depends on "experiential" perspectives and seems to suggest, the more the better. Following that logic, you are indeed at an advantage over someone with only the first two experiences you mention. I'm pretty sure that's not what Buffalo wants to argue.

I've flip-flopped an infinite number of times over the years, so that makes me The Supreme Infinite Perspective.

Bow down before my limitless viewpoint.

H.

[_Will Schryver]

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.

This entire thread is another in a long string of examples illustrating how the group think in this place produces logical blindness.

A stereoscopic view of a subject consists of two simultaneously viewed perspectives merged into one, thereby producing the perception of three-dimensional depth.

Observing an object through one monocular lens and then, at a later time, through another monocular lens, does not have the capacity to produce this perception of three-dimensional depth. The former myopia is merely replaced by the latter.

Needless to say, the entire premise of Cowchip's thesis is logically flawed.

[_Darth J]

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.

This entire thread is another in a long string of examples illustrating how the group think in this place produces logical blindness.

A stereoscopic view of a subject consists of two simultaneously viewed perspectives merged into one, thereby producing the perception of three-dimensional depth.

Observing an object through one monocular lens and then, at a later time, through another monocular lens, does not have the capacity to produce this perception of three-dimensional depth. The former myopia is merely replaced by the latter.

Needless to say, the entire premise of Cowchip's thesis is logically flawed.

Clearly, the more logical approach is to believe and to disbelieve the truth claims of the LDS Church at the same time. Cognitive dissonance is the way to a rich, full perception of an ideology.