Anti-Mormonism = FAD

[_Doctor Steuss]

Are these Mormon kids who don't believe in the church, or never-mo's? The influence of the church in Utah is so pervasive that maybe it's just a way to "get back" at what they perceive to be an organization that has undue influence.

You might be onto something here Beastie. It could be some kids trying to relieve some of their angst by sticking it to “the man” or what they see to be “the establishment.” Hopefully they will have the emotional maturity to keep it solely at intellectual levels and not allow it to take the step into violence. I think that most “anti-Mormon” adults have the ability to conceptualize between “Mormonism” and “Mormons,” but I fear that some (if not most) youth might not be able to separate the two. I know that as a youth, I often had trouble separating the “people” from the “ideals” and/or “social constructs” and potentially my hatred for a “thing” could have easily leaked out into a general despising of a “people” as a whole.

This would be my main concern with the creation of “anti-Mormon” kids.

[_wenglund]

Hey Seth,

I'm not sure it's a case of the dude you're talking about leaving for the wrong reasons. I think it's a case of him not having left at all. Being a Mormon isn't about attending church, it's about subjecting yourself to a belief system. If he started smoking and drinking etc and felt Mormon guilt over it, then he never really left in the first place.

Leaving the church is more of a mental and emotional process, not so much a physical one. And I respectfully disagree that you could do such a thing for the wrong reasons. I don't think it matters why you stop believing in Mormonism as long as you do it. It's like a kidnapped child: it doesn't matter that the child wants to escape his/her captor because his house smells funny and he listens to crappy music and not because the child wants to get back to the family or because of less than optimal conditions in which to be raised. All that matters is that the child escapes.

Were the restored gospel of Christ reasonably akin to "kidnapping", what you just said may make some sense. I am not sure, though, that you can reasonably and fairly justify that comparison, but I am open to learning how you may do so in your mind.

And, while you may perceive it that way, others may not. So, at least for them, your "logic" wouldn't apply. Agreed?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

ps: Truth Dancer, thanks for the comments, and I agree, in the end, we're all just trying to do what we feel is best in our lives, and that's all we can really expect of anyone, and that applies to both sides of the Mormon debate.

I think the more both sides come to realize this, the less critical and judgemental people may be of each other, and the less animosity, hostility, hurt, anger, etc. will be generated between the supposed opposing sides.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Sethbag]

I realize you're doing the best you can, Wade, and just trying to get through life the best way you can, and calling the shots as you see them. You're still wrong, though. :-)

[_wenglund]

I realize you're doing the best you can, Wade, and just trying to get through life the best way you can, and calling the shots as you see them. You're still wrong, though. :-)

I trust that you meant that in only the best of senses, in spite of your dilusion about me. ;-)

[_Runtu]

I realize you're doing the best you can, Wade, and just trying to get through life the best way you can, and calling the shots as you see them. You're still wrong, though. :-)

I trust that you meant that in only the best of senses, in spite of your dilusion about me. ;-)

He's diluted about you? ;)

[_Sethbag]

Of some things, a little goes a long way. ;-)

[_Some Schmo]

Were the restored gospel of Christ reasonably akin to "kidnapping", what you just said may make some sense. I am not sure, though, that you can reasonably and fairly justify that comparison, but I am open to learning how you may do so in your mind. ?

Well, I wasn't really (at least, intentionally) making an analog of the church in the form of a kidnapping, but now that you mention it, a case could be made assuming the child is young when captured and with the kidnapper for an extended period of time.

What would happen in this case is the child would effectively be raised by the kidnapper. If enough time elapsed, the kidnapper, for all intents and purposes, would become the child's step parent. He (let's assume it's a boy) would start to adopt the kidnapper's way of looking at things, habits, and other aspects of the kidnapper's lifestyle. From this perspective, it's really no surprise that the Stockholm Syndrome takes place, because after a time, the child starts to truly identify with his captor. Since he has no other frame of reference, he would likely think that the kidnapper's way of thinking was "normal." This would include whatever rationalizations and justification the kidnapper had for stealing the kid in the first place.

Is this an ideal way for the kid to be raised? Hardly. But does the fact that the kidnapper is a felon mean that everything he teaches the kid is bad? Not necessarily. In fact, since the kidnapper is living and surviving, the child will also be exposed to those habits that prolong the kidnapper's survival. But despite learning those skills, he should still try to escape for his own mental betterment.

Same thing with the church. Sure, there are things in the religion that are workable, but if the package is tainted (because let's face it: there's plenty of rationalization and justification going on there, and it's simply not true), then for the betterment of the individual, it's preferable that they get along without it, because it's a more authentic and responsible way to live.

And, while you may perceive it that way, others may not. So, at least for them, your "logic" wouldn't apply. Agreed?

The child may grow to relate to and may even eventually love his captor, but that doesn't make his perception or the situation right, or even ideal.

[_beastie]

Actually, my habit of not clarifying such differences is only recent and reserved for a select few, such as yourself, whose closed minds render making such clarifications fruitless.

However, as for the open-minded among us, and those not prone to filtering un-alterably my comments through the lense of religious or LDS stereotyping, will tend not to distort my comments, but in the unlikely event that it does occur, I have been, and still am, more than happy to productively clarify.

Wade,

You've been unwilling or unable to clarify after protesting your words were distorted for years. The fact that you're just now noticing this habit is unsurprising, considering how little self-awareness you generally demonstrate, at least on the net.