Where's Mr. D?

[_Runtu]

Well, considering that he said Mr. D once believed and now doesn't, one would have to assume that belief and not nominal membership was the issue.

by the way, that thudding sound was Wade's "scenario" collapsing in a heap of contradictions.

Excellent points. Both Wade and juliann have been making this argument for a long time: i.e., that exiters---which I have always taken to be a synonym for "ex-Mormons"---fit this baloney "Mr D" profile. But, lo and behold! we learn, that, in actuality, the only way this argument works is if the apologist in question conflates exmos with jackmormons and inactives.[/quote]

The weird thing is that Wade has essentially said that our response to no longer believing is irrational and a cognitive distortion because others have responded to the same circumstances without anger. As an example of those who had a different response, he gives us Mr. D. Now he tells us that Mr. D is not analogous to us because, unlike us, Mr. D hasn't determined that the church wasn't true, but may still believe. So, we're supposed to recognize that we shouldn't be upset about our loss of belief because people who haven't lost their belief aren't upset.

Huh?

[_wenglund]

Tis true. Looking back on my one sentence descripter of Mr. D in the previous thread, I have obviously expanded the category with my clarifications above.

Had I known what profound importance that single category would be to the Mr./Mrs. B's, I would have taken more care in crafting it. As it was, I stated it pretty much off the top of my head. Oh well.

I happen to believe the expansion (via clarification above) to be legitimate, but if folks here wish to hold me to my original statement, I suppose I am fine with that. After all, of the 3 subsets of the subset D (1. believer who left the Church, 2. unbeliever who left the Church, 3. unbeliever who didn't leave the Church, all of whom do not consider the Church as having lied about what it claims to be), I would guess that the sub-subset D2 is likely the most populous.

Here is the challenge though: in which of the subsets of the subset D do the historical figures I previously listed best fit? (D1 or D2)

If you say D1, then why did some of them never return to the Church if they believed in it, and others took so long to return? Why would some of them have joined other religious denominations after leaving the Church if they believed in the Church?

Would it be unreasonable to consider them, in a way, as unbelievers? If not, then these are at least some examples that you asked for.

If you say D2, then these are at least some examples that you asked for.

How do these historical examples I have given stack up, proportionally, to the historical Mr. B's (such as John C. Bennett and Philastus Hurlbut)? I don't know for certain. I suspect that my guess would be different than the Mr.B's here.

How do the non-historical Mr. D's stack up, proportionally, to the non-historical Mr. B's. Evidently, my guess is quite opposite from the Mr. B's here.

Is there a way to determine who is right and who is wrong?

I suppose there might be if one thought it worth the considerable effort need to make the attempt. But, I persoanlly don't think it worth the trouble.

To me, it matters little what the proportions are. The important thing to me is that the existence of Mr./Mrs. D's is established so as to evince that their way of thinking is a real and plausible and more healthy/functional alternative to the Mr./Mrs. B's.

Accordingly, if the historical figures I previously listed do not suffice as evidence for the existence of Mr./Mrs. D's, then will some of my anecdotal examples suffice? And, if not, what would you accept as evidence for the existence of Mr./Mrs. D's?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

Tis true. Looking back on my one sentence descripter of Mr. D in the previous thread, I have obviously expanded the category with my clarifications above.

I appreciate that, Wade.

Had I known what profound importance that single category would be to the Mr./Mrs. B's, I would have taken more care in crafting it. As it was, I stated it pretty much off the top of my head. Oh well.

Understood, but yes, it is of profound importance because, absent the belief, you are not speaking to our experience at all. You are comparing us to people who never believed or who still believe, not people like us who once believed and now do not. You can't tell us it's irrational to feel as we have by comparing us to people who have no reason to feel as we did.

I happen to believe the expansion (via clarification above) to be legitimate, but if folks here wish to hold me to my original statement, I suppose I am fine with that. After all, of the 3 subsets of the subset D (1. believer who left the Church, 2. unbeliever who left the Church, 3. unbeliever who didn't leave the Church, all of whom do not consider the Church as having lied about what it claims to be), I would guess that the sub-subset D2 is likely the most populous.

You're probably right, though I would say that most of the leave-takers are people for whom belief never enters the equation. For whatever reason, whether they believed or not, Mormonism didn't work for them.

Here is the challenge though: in which of the subsets of the subset D do the historical figures I previously listed best fit? (D1 or D2)

And this is important for what reason? But as I previously said, these are people who believed but left for other reasons.

If you say D1, then why did some of them never return to the Church if they believed in it, and others took so long to return? Why would some of them have joined other religious denominations after leaving the Church if they believed in the Church?

You would have to ask them why they did what they did. All we know based on their statements is that these people believed yet separated themselves from the Saints.

Would it be unreasonable to consider them, in a way, as unbelievers? If not, then these are at least some examples that you asked for.

Considering that you believe a person is the ultimate authority on what they believe, again, I'll take them at face value as stated believers. Hence, they don't quite work. It seems odd, doesn't it, that if the benign unbelievers so outnumber the bitter cranks like me, you haven't found anyone whose status as unbeliever isn't in dispute.

If you say D2, then these are at least some examples that you asked for.

I wouldn't say that, for the reasons outlined above.

How do these historical examples I have given stack up, proportionally, to the historical Mr. B's (such as John C. Bennett and Philastus Hurlbut)? I don't know for certain. I suspect that my guess would be different than the Mr.B's here.

I have no idea, and again, what does that matter? That a small number of early believers left the church has no bearing on the validity of their experience or feelings; neither does the exit of some early nonbelievers, such as William McLellin. Interestingly enough, one of the men most vilified as an enemy to the church, William Law, was nonetheless still a believer in Mormonism. I've never seen Bennett as a believer but as a user (and I think he pretty much owns up to that in his "expose"), so he might not be a good example, either. Hurlbut is an interesting case, and one who seems to fit Juliann's description of the professional apostate.

Is there a way to determine who is right and who is wrong?

Nope, which has been my point all along. As long as you cannot establish either the honesty or dishonesty of the church, its truth or untruth, or its good faith or bad faith, one's feelings, either pro or con, cannot be seen as cognitive distortions.

I suppose there might be if one thought it worth the considerable effort need to make the attempt. But, I persoanlly don't think it worth the trouble.

I'm interested in how you would go about determining this.

To me, it matters little what the proportions are.

Nor to me.

The important thing to me is that the existence of Mr./Mrs. D's is established so as to evince that their way of thinking is a real and plausible and more healthy/functional alternative to the Mr./Mrs. B's.

But again, you have not established the existence of people who once believed and now do not believe yet had no feelings about their loss of faith. As long as you can't provide examples of the "healthy alternative," we really don't have much to talk about.

Accordingly, if the historical figures I previously listed do not suffice as evidence for the existence of Mr./Mrs. D's, then will some of my anecdotal examples suffice? And, if not, what would you accept as evidence for the existence of Mr./Mrs. D's?

Of course, Wade. I'd love to hear even anecdotal evidence for someone who left the church after losing their belief and yet who had no sense of loss.

[_wenglund]

To me, not believing that the Church works in one's personal case, is a form of unbelief in the Church (not to be confused with disbelief in the Church), and it is a form that fits the scenerio of Mr./Mrs. D as I originally saw it and crafted it. These unbelievers, along with the disbelievers, comprise the set of those "who no longer believe in the product". In fact, as you have noted, and I agree, this form of unbeliever likely comprises the "vast majority" of those who have left the Church, and have done so without being angered and grief-stricken by the belief that the Church lied about what it claims to be (in large part because they either don't view the Church in that uncharitable and unfair way, or they haven't given it the least thought).

So, the Mr./Mrs. D's are clearly out there.

However, it appears that you aren't so much interested in the Mr./Mrs. D's in general, but rather in determining if a certain supposed segment of Mr./Mrs. D's exists or not: specifically, those who disbelieve the Church is what it claims to be, have left the Church as a result thereof, but yet who don't view the Church as deliberatly intending to deceive people about what the Church claims to be. Correct?

In other words, in a way, you are looking for the LDS equivolent of that specific segment of Mr./Mrs. D's who have left other religious denominations and joined the Church. There are not a few people that I know personally who converted to the restored gospel of Christ from some other faith tradition, who, in light of their conversion, disbelieve their former Church is what it claims to be (i.e. the gospel of Christ), but yet who do not view their former faith as having deliberately intended to deceive them about what they claim to be, and thus they experienced no anger or grief that may have been associated therewith.

The same may be true of atheists or agnostics who have joined the Church. I personally know of a few Mr./Mrs. D's who have converted to the restorded gospel of Christ, and who, in light of their conversion, disbelieve the claims of their former group, but yet don't view atheist or agnostic organizations or people as deliberately intending to deceive people about what they claim to be.

So, if such occurs in one direction (leaving other traditions to join the restored gospel of Christ), or in other words if there are the kind of Mr./Mrs. D's you are looking for who have left other traditions, then is it possible that it may occur in the other direction (those who leave the restored gospel of Christ for other belief systems--religious or otherwise), or in other words there the kind of Mr./Mrs. D's you are looking for who have left the restored gospel of Christ. Correct?

I mention this not by way of evidence, but by way of openning the mind to the possibility and perhaps even the probability.

The difficulty in finding the Mr./Mrs. D's that you are looking for, is an opposing function of the princip[le that the squeeky wheel gets the grease--i.e the quite wheel goes unnoticed. Those who have been angered or grief-stricken by the uncharitable and unfair belief that the Church lied about what it claims to be, are the ones who tend to proclaim that belief and feelings, and not those who do not believe or feel that way. In fact, the latter has little or no cause for doing so.

Consequently, for practical purposes here, I am left to resort to anecdotal examples to evince the existence of the kind of Mr./Mrs. D's that you are looking for.

Case #1, This person became disaffected from the Church due to Word-of-Wisdom issues that included drug and alcohol addiction, as well as the inability to reconcile the lack of disciplinary action in the case of a local Church leader. Some time after leaving the Church, this person developed an interest in Eastern religions, and has for a few years embraced a kind of new-age belief system. Through extensive conversations with this person, there has been intimated that he/she no longer believes the Church is what it claims to be (i.e the restored gospel of Christ, the kingdom of God on earth, and the "only true Chruch"), but views the leaders and members as good and faithful people who honestly believe what they claim.

I will give other examples later.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

To me, not believing that the Church works in one's personal case, is a form of unbelief in the Church (not to be confused with disbelief in the Church), and it is a form that fits the scenerio of Mr./Mrs. D as I originally saw it and crafted it. These unbelievers, along with the disbelievers, comprise the set of those "who no longer believe in the product". In fact, as you have noted, and I agree, this form of unbeliever likely comprises the "vast majority" of those who have left the Church, and have done so without being angered and grief-stricken by the belief that the Church lied about what it claims to be (in large part because they either don't view the Church in that uncharitable and unfair way, or they haven't given it the least thought).

So, the Mr./Mrs. D's are clearly out there.

If you broaden the definition beyond what you had said, I suppose you are correct. But again, why are you comparing them to us? In what way is their experience analogous to ours, and what do you think we can learn from them? I would really like to know, because so far you've told me that these people exist, but they aren't much like me in their experience.

However, it appears that you aren't so much interested in the Mr./Mrs. D's in general, but rather in determining if a certain supposed segment of Mr./Mrs. D's exists or not: specifically, those who disbelieve the Church is what it claims to be, have left the Church as a result thereof, but yet who don't view the Church as deliberatly intending to deceive people about what the Church claims to be. Correct?

I'm only asking that because, I figure that if I'm supposed to learn the proper way to respond to a loss of faith, I would expect to be given examples of people whose experience was similar to mine but who reacted differently. At the risk of using yet another analogy, let me suggest that if you want to express the proper way to react, say, to winning a million-dollar prize, you would compare two people who won a prize like that. You wouldn't say, "Well, Bob wasn't disappointed because he won a million dollars; therefore, you shouldn't be disappointed because you didn't win it." Does that make sense?

In other words, in a way, you are looking for the LDS equivolent of that specific segment of Mr./Mrs. D's who have left other religious denominations and joined the Church. There are not a few people that I know personally who converted to the restored gospel of Christ from some other faith tradition, who, in light of their conversion, disbelieve their former Church is what it claims to be (i.e. the gospel of Christ), but yet who do not view their former faith as having deliberately intended to deceive them about what they claim to be, and thus they experienced no anger or grief that may have been associated therewith.

Yep, I know lots of people like that, too, though the analogy is quite inexact. Most people, who leave Lutheranism, for example, don't have a 150-year trail of less-than-truthful statements from church leaders. Again, I'm looking for helpful comparisons to people with similar experiences to mine; I sincerely would like to learn from them.

The same may be true of atheists or agnostics who have joined the Church. I personally know of a few Mr./Mrs. D's who have converted to the restorded gospel of Christ, and who, in light of their conversion, disbelieve the claims of their former group, but yet don't view atheist or agnostic organizations or people as deliberately intending to deceive people about what they claim to be.

Again, not a very apt analogy, but I understand where you're going.

So, if such occurs in one direction (leaving other traditions to join the restored gospel of Christ), or in other words if there are the kind of Mr./Mrs. D's you are looking for who have left other traditions, then is it possible that it may occur in the other direction (those who leave the restored gospel of Christ for other belief systems--religious or otherwise), or in other words there the kind of Mr./Mrs. D's you are looking for who have left the restored gospel of Christ. Correct?

Of course it's possible, Wade. I just haven't seen it, and I'd like to meet some of these people. I believe there's a reason you're not finding examples in those who have left the church (and it's not because exmormons are by nature a mean-spirited, bitter lot).

I mention this not by way of evidence, but by way of openning the mind to the possibility and perhaps even the probability.

I have always been open to the possibility. In fact, I've always thought that Dan Vogel and Brent Metcalfe are as close as I've seen to Mr. Ds. But given their outspoken criticism of the church, I don't know that they fit the "quietly move on" thing.

The difficulty in finding the Mr./Mrs. D's that you are looking for, is an opposing function of the princip[le that the squeeky wheel gets the grease--i.e the quite wheel goes unnoticed. Those who have been angered or grief-stricken by the uncharitable and unfair belief that the Church lied about what it claims to be, are the ones who tend to proclaim that belief and feelings, and not those who do not believe or feel that way. In fact, the latter has little or no cause for doing so.

Of course that's true. But surely you can find someone, somewhere who fits that notion.

Consequently, for practical purposes here, I am left to resort to anecdotal examples to evince the existence of the kind of Mr./Mrs. D's that you are looking for.

Great. I'm all ears.

Case #1, This person became disaffected from the Church due to Word-of-Wisdom issues that included drug and alcohol addiction, as well as the inability to reconcile the lack of disciplinary action in the case of a local Church leader. Some time after leaving the Church, this person developed an interest in Eastern religions, and has for a few years embraced a kind of new-age belief system. Through extensive conversations with this person, there has been intimated that he/she no longer believes the Church is what it claims to be (i.e the restored gospel of Christ, the kingdom of God on earth, and the "only true Chruch"), but views the leaders and members as good and faithful people who honestly believe what they claim.

That would be a good example of someone who left for "other reasons," as in Word of Wisdom reasons. Sounds to me like the nonbelief was less a nonbelief in LDSism as it was an embracing of eastern religion. It's not quite the same as the discovery that the church is not what it says it is, which again was part of the setup for your scenario. I'm not trying to be nitpicky, but I genuinely don't relate to people like your Case #1 because that experience is nothing like mine.

I will give other examples later.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I look forward to it. I really do appreciate the effort, Wade.

[_wenglund]

It's not quite the same as the discovery that the church is not what it says it is, which again was part of the setup for your scenario. I'm not trying to be nitpicky, but I genuinely don't relate to people like your Case #1 because that experience is nothing like mine.

This is very helpful, and explains to me why you may have been intent on defining Mr. D in such narrow terms, or at least in having me find such a narrow segment of the Mr. D population.

Unfortunately, it misunderstands, in no small way, the purpose I had in mind, generally speaking, for the very simple scenerio, and for Mr. D in particular.

Really, all that was intended was: 1) to posit the general notion that there are viable alternatives to viewing the Church as lying about what it claims to be, including more specifically in terms of those who no longer believe the truth claims of the Church. 2) Given those viable alternitives, then viewing the Church as lying about what it claims to be is not necessary, and thus the signiificant anger and emotion that may result from viewing the Church in that unnecessary way, are themselves unnecessary. 3) Since it is not necessary to view the Church in that way, nor is it necessary to experience significant anger and grief because of that view, then it may be in one's own interest to choose one of the other viable alternatives (so as to avoid unnecessary personal anger and grief), and it may be in the interest of all parties concerned to do likewise (so as to avoid unnecessarily causing others anger and grief that may contribute to the cycle of anger and grief). In short, it was intended to convey the notion that there are more mutually beneficial and workable alternatives to the choice you and other Mr. B's have made.

Once that simple notion was sufficiently established, I had intended, if still necessary, to explore whether it was reasonable or unreasonable to view the Church as lying about what it claimed to be. But, in the thread in question, we weren't able to get beyond step one.

I had, however, made an attempt to address this second issue in a subsequent thread, though likewise without success (we didn't get beyond step two there).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

It's not quite the same as the discovery that the church is not what it says it is, which again was part of the setup for your scenario. I'm not trying to be nitpicky, but I genuinely don't relate to people like your Case #1 because that experience is nothing like mine.

This is very helpful, and explains to me why you may have been intent on defining Mr. D in such narrow terms, or at least in having me find such a narrow segment of the Mr. D population.

Unfortunately, it misunderstands, in no small way, the purpose I had in mind, generally speaking, for the very simple scenerio, and for Mr. D in particular.

Really, all that was intended was: 1) to posit the general notion that there are viable alternatives to viewing the Church as lying about what it claims to be, including more specifically in terms of those who no longer believe the truth claims of the Church. 2) Given those viable alternitives, then viewing the Church as lying about what it claims to be is not necessary, and thus the signiificant anger and emotion that may result from viewing the Church in that unnecessary way, are themselves unnecessary. 3) Since it is not necessary to view the Church in that way, nor is it necessary to experience significant anger and grief because of that view, then it may be in one's own interest to choose one of the other viable alternatives (so as to avoid unnecessary personal anger and grief), and it may be in the interest of all parties concerned to do likewise (so as to avoid unnecessarily causing others anger and grief that may contribute to the cycle of anger and grief). In short, it was intended to convey the notion that there are more mutually beneficial and workable alternatives to the choice you and other Mr. B's have made.

Once that simple notion was sufficiently established, I had intended, if still necessary, to explore whether it was reasonable or unreasonable to view the Church as lying about what it claimed to be. But, in the thread in question, we weren't able to get beyond step one.

I had, however, made an attempt to address this second issue in a subsequent thread, though likewise without success (we didn't get beyond step two there).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Of course there are viable alternatives to believing that the church lied about itself. I thought the thread about whether the church lied about itself got off to a good start, but you seemed to get stuck in not even being able to acknowledge a rather clear-cut lie or consider its relevance to the church's claims about itself. I'd be willing to engage that thread again, but I suspect we'd have more productivity in discussing the foundational claims of Joseph Smith and whether those could be reasonably considered lies.

[_Mister Scratch]

It's not quite the same as the discovery that the church is not what it says it is, which again was part of the setup for your scenario. I'm not trying to be nitpicky, but I genuinely don't relate to people like your Case #1 because that experience is nothing like mine.

This is very helpful, and explains to me why you may have been intent on defining Mr. D in such narrow terms, or at least in having me find such a narrow segment of the Mr. D population.

Unfortunately, it misunderstands, in no small way, the purpose I had in mind, generally speaking, for the very simple scenerio, and for Mr. D in particular.

Really, all that was intended was: 1) to posit the general notion that there are viable alternatives to viewing the Church as lying about what it claims to be, including more specifically in terms of those who no longer believe the truth claims of the Church. 2) Given those viable alternitives, then viewing the Church as lying about what it claims to be is not necessary, and thus the signiificant anger and emotion that may result from viewing the Church in that unnecessary way, are themselves unnecessary.

Wade, you bonehead. You act as if this view is a choice. It is not. Even one of your own "Mr D" examples says that the Church has lied: Mike Quinn. Whether or not somebody gets upset has to do with whether or not they are "okay" with this lying or not.

3) Since it is not necessary to view the Church in that way, nor is it necessary to experience significant anger and grief because of that view, then it may be in one's own interest to choose one of the other viable alternatives (so as to avoid unnecessary personal anger and grief), and it may be in the interest of all parties concerned to do likewise (so as to avoid unnecessarily causing others anger and grief that may contribute to the cycle of anger and grief). In short, it was intended to convey the notion that there are more mutually beneficial and workable alternatives to the choice you and other Mr. B's have made.

Which are.... what? You've still failed, after all this time, to produce even one, single, salient example.

Once that simple notion was sufficiently established, I had intended, if still necessary, to explore whether it was reasonable or unreasonable to view the Church as lying about what it claimed to be. But, in the thread in question, we weren't able to get beyond step one.

The Church has been dishonest. There's no way around this one, buddy boy.

I had, however, made an attempt to address this second issue in a subsequent thread, though likewise without success (we didn't get beyond step two there).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That is because you are weak.

[_Runtu]

The Church has been dishonest. There's no way around this one, buddy boy.

Yeah, that's pretty much it, isn't it? I even gave him a clear-cut example of dishonesty, which he refused to acknowledge, and then insisted that it wasn't relevant anyway. I wonder what exactly is relevant to Wade?

[_Mister Scratch]

The Church has been dishonest. There's no way around this one, buddy boy.

Yeah, that's pretty much it, isn't it? I even gave him a clear-cut example of dishonesty, which he refused to acknowledge, and then insisted that it wasn't relevant anyway. I wonder what exactly is relevant to Wade?

Let's face facts here: the Church is pretty much the equivalent of Wade's wife. He never married, and consequently, all his energies which normally would have gone into the normal, day-to-day maintenance of a marriage, has instead gone into a somewhat perverse love affair with the Church. He does not treat it like a religion; he treats it like his beloved: it gets totally and utterly idealized, and completely frosted over with the saccharine, tongue- and mind-numbing delusional mindset commonly associated with puppy love. He really treats the Church in an immature way, in my opinion. He is like an overprotective, jealous fourteen-year-old, zealously guarding his beloved's honor. The trouble is that his beloved has been fooling around behind his back. He can either decide to forgive, or he can decide to be angry. Or he can stick with his present choice, which is to stick his head in the sand.