Nelson: “Don’t pollute [your testimony] with the false philosophies of unbelieving men and women…”

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
User avatar
Dr Moore
Endowed Chair of Historical Innovation
Posts: 1208
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:16 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Nelson: “Don’t pollute [your testimony] with the false philosophies of unbelieving men and women…”

Post by Dr Moore »

Marcus wrote:
Thu Aug 04, 2022 8:11 pm
Gadianton wrote:
Thu Aug 04, 2022 8:05 pm

...Sometimes there just isn't a solution. Liberal, democratic society isn't compatible with the outlooks of fundamentalist religions, but liberal, democratic society must be tolerant toward fundamentalist religion. For me, that translates to me listening to family, whereas they don't have to listen to me, and if I want a relationship with them, I have to take them on their terms.
exactly the same in my family. (are we related? what are the odds? :D )
Yeah. Perfectly stated here too. It’s ironic that the Christ like behavior has to be one sided.
User avatar
Gadianton
God
Posts: 2285
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 11:56 pm

Re: Nelson: “Don’t pollute [your testimony] with the false philosophies of unbelieving men and women…”

Post by Gadianton »

Kishkumen wrote:Both have their stories for what must have happened, and, in my view, they are just stories. Myths of their own kind. Each side is really invested in the rightness of its own myth, and it is almost impossible to exchange the one for the other, or bridge the gap between them, because seeing from the other point of view is tantamount to having that point of view, and that simply cannot be.
I think the way you're framing this makes sense from a sociological perspective, to understand behavior without casting judgement. From a sociological standpoint, it's axiomatic that all behavior at a deep level is rational, and all groups are moved by their own mythology. So at some point, even die-hard Trumpism is rational. Scientists who are right about something still have mythology. To say otherwise would be akin to saying that one biological evolutionary pathway that happened is nonsensical while another is enlightened. It's assumed to make sense because it happened, it's a matter of understanding why. That need for understanding leaves a tremendous tension with the equally pressing need to assess morality. If the outcome of all the chemical factors in an insane murder's head is accounted for by a psychiatrist, on what grounds do we say anything is really bad?

Making moral assessments while wearing both a scholarly hat and while also being a moral agent, is maddening. Suppose I have an altercation with a stranger in a parking lot. As a psychiatrist, I understand these conflicts very well, I understand the chemical reasons why I acted out as well as the other party, and so I have to decide, am I always just as wrong as the other party because my psychology is equally bound to my brain chemistry as the other person? "Mythology" is an abstraction layer above psychology as psychology is above neurons firing. As an apostate, I know I'm subject to broader social movements as-is everybody else. There was some (non-Mormon) professor at Claremont (Armand Mauss?) who did a study about post-Mormon mythology. Post-Mormons recite their experiences in predictable ways, and the apologists were all over that study because to them, that meant that post-Mormons are just as irrational as Mormons are -- they have exit narratives that are the equivalent of a testimony. Both are bound to social fabric. And so if I'm a sociologist, and happen to be Mormon, I can't make a fully authentic decision about anything because I will ultimately be explained by the time and place I live, if not by my psychological profile or brain chemistry. And so as a moral agent, I have to put all that away, and nonetheless believe that I can make right or wrong decisions and contrast that with the choices of others. In fact, ironically, I'm wired to do so whether I wish to or not.

And so I think that, as a student of human behavior while at the same time as being human, I must appreciate the limits of my own original thinking and actions, knowing that I can't escape my humanness, but at the same time, since it is axiomatic that all behaviors are equally sensible in terms of causal human explanation by sociology and psychology, it's pointless to suspend all moral judgment just because I know no mater what I do, I'll be explained equally well by history.
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 3371
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Nelson: “Don’t pollute [your testimony] with the false philosophies of unbelieving men and women…”

Post by Kishkumen »

Dr Moore wrote:
Thu Aug 04, 2022 7:23 pm
Of course, every case is unique. However, what niggles at me about Nelson's advice here is precisely what's wrong with both my family, and my wife's family. Church counsel creates a toxic block between current and former members, be they family, friends or ward members.

Love, but don't listen.
Care, but don't empathize.
Hug them, just don't ask them for their truth.

Toxic messaging, even if the toxicity is subtle. Death to relationships is slow, tortuous. But sure as anything, this message drives wedges further between people who actually NEED to be shown the way to talk with one another. Nelson, and indeed the historical Mormon way, is to tell one side of the narrative so current believers are afraid to ask, listen or empathize. I stand firmly against it.
I do understand, Dr Moore. And yet, at the same time, what do committed believers do with the fact that your truth, the one you want them to listen to and empathize with, will take them out of the faith they have sacrificed so much for and apparently love very much?

I will never forget the day one of my friends told me I had destroyed his faith in Mormonism. I was deeply saddened by that and felt a terrible burden of responsibility. The odd thing is, I had no idea nor any intention of doing so. I was just thinking through various questions out loud. Now, he was happy to be out, but I still felt like this news was a lot to lay on me. I hope it was untrue, and, in fact, I have concluded that it must be untrue. Nevertheless, I don't really expect anyone to hear me out on why I left. I would rather that they misunderstand me than that they feel like I am trying to pry them out of their faith, even when I have no intention of doing so.

Those are the thoughts that go through my head when I read your post. I apologize if they are not apropos of your comments. I know that there is loneliness and isolation that comes with leaving the LDS fold, and that it is terrible not to have your family support you or even be open to what you have to say.

All I can say is that I am sorry.
“Academia’s continual campaign to disregard or neglect the classics is a sign of spiritual decay, moral decline and a deep intellectual narrowness running amok in American culture.” ~ Cornel West
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 3371
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Nelson: “Don’t pollute [your testimony] with the false philosophies of unbelieving men and women…”

Post by Kishkumen »

Aristotle Smith, Jr. wrote:
Thu Aug 04, 2022 7:26 pm
Ha.

I rarely come here and stopped commenting years ago. I couldn't login as my old account, hence the new one which I will promptly forget about.

I stopped posting/visiting here 100% because of Kishkumen's behavior. And imagine my complete lack of surprise to visit here on one of those rare occasions only to see him still doing it. This is what Kishkumen does. This is HIS place and he will take a dump wherever the hell he feels like. I have no idea why this place is so important to him, the number of his posts here is truly stunning, and he does play the contrarian with basically no rhyme or reason. I guess it makes him feel better.

But I would like to thank Kishy for being a jerk to me. You really have saved me a lot of time posting here. So THANK YOU for all of those hours of my life back. I probably would still be inordinately concerned about Mormonism if he acted better. However, he is living proof that anything attached to Mormonism, either for, against, or the bizarro contrarian sort-of-in-but-sort-of-out he seems to relish is just not worth it.
Hey, Aristotle. I apologize for having done you wrong, and I have missed your participation. I guess you are happy with how it all turned out, hours saved, and all that. You are always welcome around here, as far as I am concerned. I firmly believe in Dr. Shades' policy of all being welcome. And yet, I hope this will especially be true of smart, knowledgeable people and good writers like yourself.

As far as things being worth it go, I guess we all decide by what we do what we value and how much. You decided to pack it in here, and I decided to stick around. There you go. As long as we are both happy, we should rejoice for each other.
“Academia’s continual campaign to disregard or neglect the classics is a sign of spiritual decay, moral decline and a deep intellectual narrowness running amok in American culture.” ~ Cornel West
Marcus
God
Posts: 1933
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: Nelson: “Don’t pollute [your testimony] with the false philosophies of unbelieving men and women…”

Post by Marcus »

Marcus wrote:
Thu Aug 04, 2022 8:01 pm
Aristotle Smith, Jr. wrote:
Thu Aug 04, 2022 7:26 pm

But I would like to thank Kishy for being a jerk to me. You really have saved me a lot of time posting here. So THANK YOU for all of those hours of my life back. I probably would still be inordinately concerned about Mormonism if he acted better. However, he is living proof that anything attached to Mormonism, either for, against, or the bizarro contrarian sort-of-in-but-sort-of-out he seems to relish is just not worth it.
the bizarro contrarian sort-of-in-but-sort-of-out he seems to relish

he's been doing this for a very long time, then!! :D
And he continues still. Why? Who knows.
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 3356
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: Nelson: “Don’t pollute [your testimony] with the false philosophies of unbelieving men and women…”

Post by Philo Sofee »

Dr. Moore
Often, but not always, right? Maybe not a majority of the time. Nelson is asking believers to avoid listening to all of them. For many, such as myself, the reconsideration of faith had nothing to do with other circumstances. It was entirely about things I learned regarding the faith. Yet here is Nelson, suggesting to his believing audience, that there must be something else wrong, hidden, perhaps even sordid, about me and my life, that explains -- even negates the intrinsic value of -- my doubts.
In light of your new post on the church using BILLIONS of dollars for hush money to keep LDS people out of the spotlight for child abuse, I would say this alone is enough for me to tell them to go jump in a lake. The Mormon leadership hypocrisy is staggering. They KNOW the sexual abuse of minors is happening, but keep it quiet, and then secretly pay hush money. They protect the abusers.
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 3371
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Nelson: “Don’t pollute [your testimony] with the false philosophies of unbelieving men and women…”

Post by Kishkumen »

Gadianton wrote:
Thu Aug 04, 2022 9:45 pm
There was some (non-Mormon) professor at Claremont (Armand Mauss?) who did a study about post-Mormon mythology.
If it was Armand Mauss, he was active LDS. He passed away not long ago, I thought. I am not sure whether he was the one to do this particular study or not.
Post-Mormons recite their experiences in predictable ways, and the apologists were all over that study because to them, that meant that post-Mormons are just as irrational as Mormons are -- they have exit narratives that are the equivalent of a testimony.
The process of leaving Mormonism does follow a pretty well-worn path. Not that it is any less significant for those who do the leaving. I remember that Mopologists got a lot of mileage out of that one. Frankly, I got tired of following the high profile exits that John Dehlin publicized. I am sure they were important to the people involved and to many who listened to their Mormon Stories interviews, but I was sated on that stuff.

I think of the exit narrative as an almost ritualized part of the de-conversion process. I went through it, so I have some idea of what it is like and what it is about.
Both are bound to social fabric. And so if I'm a sociologist, and happen to be Mormon, I can't make a fully authentic decision about anything because I will ultimately be explained by the time and place I live, if not by my psychological profile or brain chemistry. And so as a moral agent, I have to put all that away, and nonetheless believe that I can make right or wrong decisions and contrast that with the choices of others. In fact, ironically, I'm wired to do so whether I wish to or not.
True!
And so I think that, as a student of human behavior while at the same time as being human, I must appreciate the limits of my own original thinking and actions, knowing that I can't escape my humanness, but at the same time, since it is axiomatic that all behaviors are equally sensible in terms of causal human explanation by sociology and psychology, it's pointless to suspend all moral judgment just because I know no mater what I do, I'll be explained equally well by history.
Religion is highly subjective. I think of it in terms of what is right for a particular person at the time. Unless I truly thought that a cultural system had no redeeming value, I would probably suspend judgment. Perhaps, for the person in question, the choice they have made is best for them, whether that be leaving a religion, leaving religion altogether, or staying.

Recently Mormon Studies scholar Prof. Steve Taysom said that people should not be judged harshly for leaving LDSism if its function as a meaning-making system no longer works for them. I agree with him, but he is also in a role and speaking in a forum that allows him to do that. I don't know that an LDS leader would be at liberty to do anything of the kind. Maybe that decision looks a lot different when you occupy the leader's seat, and it doesn't take a bad person to balk at following Prof. Taysom's example.

I guess after reading your post I am left with the question: what is the moral decision? Each person will have to decide, yes, but I can also see giving people a break for having decided differently where uncertainty reigns.
“Academia’s continual campaign to disregard or neglect the classics is a sign of spiritual decay, moral decline and a deep intellectual narrowness running amok in American culture.” ~ Cornel West
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 3371
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Nelson: “Don’t pollute [your testimony] with the false philosophies of unbelieving men and women…”

Post by Kishkumen »

Philo Sofee wrote:
Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:07 am
In light of your new post on the church using BILLIONS of dollars for hush money to keep LDS people out of the spotlight for child abuse, I would say this alone is enough for me to tell them to go jump in a lake. The Mormon leadership hypocrisy is staggering. They KNOW the sexual abuse of minors is happening, but keep it quiet, and then secretly pay hush money. They protect the abusers.
It is certainly enough for me to tell them to go jump in a lake. And then some.
“Academia’s continual campaign to disregard or neglect the classics is a sign of spiritual decay, moral decline and a deep intellectual narrowness running amok in American culture.” ~ Cornel West
User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 5120
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

Re: Nelson: “Don’t pollute [your testimony] with the false philosophies of unbelieving men and women…”

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

Aristotle Smith, Jr. wrote:
Thu Aug 04, 2022 7:26 pm
Marcus wrote:
Thu Aug 04, 2022 6:48 pm
I know I am risking great wrath, but this has gone on long enough. someone needs to speak straightforwardly to you.

kishkumen, your recent defenses of the lds church are utter B.S..

you seem to have some contrarian streak that makes you argue against every comment, which is fine, but recently you have been veering into completely illogical territory. My fellow professor, you are spouting B.S.. unhealthy, thoughtless, hurtful B.S..


eta: because of your recent lack of logic, you are on ignore, so feel free to attack me all you want. that's your style, and it always has been. reading your older posts here has been an eye opener.
Ha.

I rarely come here and stopped commenting years ago. I couldn't login as my old account, hence the new one which I will promptly forget about.

I stopped posting/visiting here 100% because of Kishkumen's behavior. And imagine my complete lack of surprise to visit here on one of those rare occasions only to see him still doing it. This is what Kishkumen does. This is HIS place and he will take a dump wherever the hell he feels like. I have no idea why this place is so important to him, the number of his posts here is truly stunning, and he does play the contrarian with basically no rhyme or reason. I guess it makes him feel better.

But I would like to thank Kishy for being a jerk to me. You really have saved me a lot of time posting here. So THANK YOU for all of those hours of my life back. I probably would still be inordinately concerned about Mormonism if he acted better. However, he is living proof that anything attached to Mormonism, either for, against, or the bizarro contrarian sort-of-in-but-sort-of-out he seems to relish is just not worth it.
I dunno. I think Kish is cool. Whether you agree with his ‘LDS theodicy’ or not, you have to give him credit for the consistently thoughtful and well-composed content he provides for free on this board. He’s an excellent board participant precisely because he’s willing to actually discuss topics. If you don’t agree with Kish’s hot takes, then engage him. We’d all be better for it. Use words, and test his ideas. There are some epic debates that have taken place here, and it’s awesome. Don’t jeer from the Peanut Gallery. That position is already filled.

- Doc
1. Speech is aggression.
2. Every utterance has a winner or a loser.
3. Curiosity is feigned.
4. Lying is performative.
5. Stupidity is power.
huckelberry
God
Posts: 1281
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:48 pm

Re: Nelson: “Don’t pollute [your testimony] with the false philosophies of unbelieving men and women…”

Post by huckelberry »

Kishkumen wrote:
Thu Aug 04, 2022 11:23 pm
Aristotle Smith, Jr. wrote:
Thu Aug 04, 2022 7:26 pm
Ha.

I rarely come here and stopped commenting years ago. I couldn't login as my old account, hence the new one which I will promptly forget about.

I stopped posting/visiting here 100% because of Kishkumen's behavior. And imagine my complete lack of surprise to visit here on one of those rare occasions only to see him still doing it. This is what Kishkumen does. This is HIS place and he will take a dump wherever the hell he feels like. I have no idea why this place is so important to him, the number of his posts here is truly stunning, and he does play the contrarian with basically no rhyme or reason. I guess it makes him feel better.

But I would like to thank Kishy for being a jerk to me. You really have saved me a lot of time posting here. So THANK YOU for all of those hours of my life back. I probably would still be inordinately concerned about Mormonism if he acted better. However, he is living proof that anything attached to Mormonism, either for, against, or the bizarro contrarian sort-of-in-but-sort-of-out he seems to relish is just not worth it.
Hey, Aristotle. I apologize for having done you wrong, and I have missed your participation. I guess you are happy with how it all turned out, hours saved, and all that. You are always welcome around here, as far as I am concerned. I firmly believe in Dr. Shades' policy of all being welcome. And yet, I hope this will especially be true of smart, knowledgeable people and good writers like yourself.

As far as things being worth it go, I guess we all decide by what we do what we value and how much. You decided to pack it in here, and I decided to stick around. There you go. As long as we are both happy, we should rejoice for each other.
I am shocked to think Aristotle Smith could write such a shallow juvenile complaint.
Just think Kishkumen has some different attitudes and point of view about the church! how could that be allowed?

"Kishy" what crap talk for no good reason

///
adding, I see the computer censor changed the s word to crap. Oh well crap will due to characterize Aristotle's pathetic comment.
Post Reply