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
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 3384
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 »

I dunno. I think Kish is cool.
Why thank you, DocCam!

Right back atchya.

:D
"Stubborn audacity is the last refuge of guilt." ~ Samuel Johnson
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 3384
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 »

huckelberry wrote:
Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:13 am
Just think Kishkumen has some different attitudes and point of view about the church! how could that be allowed?
I am happy not to have driven everyone away and that some people will not put me on ignore. I hope that is true of everyone who posts here.
"Stubborn audacity is the last refuge of guilt." ~ Samuel Johnson
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 »

I must confess, Aristotle Smith's post has terrific shock value. Perhaps he doesn't know you well enough Kishkumen?
Marcus
God
Posts: 1949
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 »

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:11 am

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.
What I don't give him credit for is his vicious personal attacks when you disagree with him. You've been lucky if you haven't experienced that. I would have no problem with an actual discussion, but that's not Kishkumen's style. He gets ugly and makes inappropriate personal attacks, that go on and on and on. I thought maybe it was just me, but then i read some of his history here. It's not pretty. He's had this negative approach for years.
User avatar
Rivendale
Stake President
Posts: 568
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:21 pm

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

Post by Rivendale »

Marcus wrote:
Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:31 am
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:11 am

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.
What I don't give him credit for is his vicious personal attacks when you disagree with him. You've been lucky if you haven't experienced that. I would have no problem with an actual discussion, but that's not Kishkumen's style. He gets ugly and makes inappropriate personal attacks, that go on and on and on. I thought maybe it was just me, but then i read some of his history here. It's not pretty. He's had this negative approach for years.
It isn't just you .
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 »

What drives me away from the church is the leadership false philosophies of paying hush money of sexual abused persons by Mormons in leadership positions, but the top leaderships FALSE philosophy of protect the image of the church is far and away more damaging to my believing them than anything ever said by atheists. The leadership itself practices and teaches FALSE philosophy of which is also another reason why I have left Mormon apologetics. I cannot and will not defend that kind of morally cowardly hypocritical sexually perverted philosophy of the Mormon leadership when it comes to sexual abuse from leaders who then are defended by the church's own lawyers. The church pays its lawyers money to protect its image instead of cleaning up the immoral and sick, disgusting immorality which it allows to continue on for years and years.

And most astonishing of all of it, Jesus Christ himself apparently won't do anything about it either, and, based on the scripture, he certainly could do something, but instead lets so many innocent lives get ruined, and for what? Sexual perversion of HIS OWN CHOSEN LEADERS. This is seriously too hard for me to swallow. It really does make me wonder if he is real.
Last edited by Philo Sofee on Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Dr Moore
Endowed Chair of Historical Innovation
Posts: 1223
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 »

Gadianton wrote:
Thu Aug 04, 2022 9:45 pm
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.
Lovely
User avatar
Dr Moore
Endowed Chair of Historical Innovation
Posts: 1223
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 »

Kishkumen wrote:
Thu Aug 04, 2022 11:15 pm
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.
To be entirely too reductionist, they love it because on some level, they've been kept in the dark by leadership. That is the point of this thread -- this painful dichotomy is the result of a calculated, conscious system of teaching. It may be subtle, sugar coated with belief in promised blessings and eventual reconciliation. It may even be heartfelt, even if arguably that is fear masquerading as love. But the strategy is proving disastrous, thanks to the gift of online community, because it is objectively an unethical customer retention model. The cost of their deceptive retention model is insanely high. Back to the "informed consent" mantra that many here seem to dislike.

It is by choice that church leaders
(1) hide critical important information from members in order to foster, as you describe, that love of the faith they have sacrificed so much for,
(2) impose negative "evil" or "wrongness" narratives on members who leave after discovering that information,
thus (3) creating a shame-based retention structure whereby those in doubt are gaslit en masse and forced to contend with the prospect that the fingers of blame will always point at them if they leave. That if you learn new information and change your beliefs, you must continue doing the same acts as before or else you risk losing everything.

Sorry to hear about your friend. Truly, that is an awkward feeling. My brother feels bad for sending me links to the gospel topic essays while I was a full fledged TBM.
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 3384
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 12:25 am
I must confess, Aristotle Smith's post has terrific shock value. Perhaps he doesn't know you well enough Kishkumen?
I don’t know. It looks like I rub some people the wrong way.
"Stubborn audacity is the last refuge of guilt." ~ Samuel Johnson
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 3384
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:
Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:48 am
Gadianton wrote:
Thu Aug 04, 2022 9:45 pm


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.
Lovely
It really is that.
"Stubborn audacity is the last refuge of guilt." ~ Samuel Johnson
Post Reply