Does DCP Require Biased Moderation?

[_charity]

These posts all talk about sinning, so I have grouped them together.

But what's interesting is that the Charitys of the church seem to believe it is due to sin that we leave! It fits their schema that if they observe us "sinning" (from the Mormon perspective), that is evidence that we have lost the spirit, and that Trump's all other reasons.

What makes me question statements like this is that I specifically said that only some leave for reasons of being exed for sinning. So, why would you think I said ALL left for that reason? Defensiveness is pretty telling.

The funny thing is that there's plenty of LDS who STAY in the church who are sinning. So the idea that you have to leave the church to sin is plain nonsense anyway.

Again, a total misrepresentation of what I said. In fact, I specifically mentioned being excommunicated for sinning, which by all logic means that the sin preceded the excommunication. Are you on pain meds or something?

charity wrote:
cksalmon wrote:


In a fairly-limited sample set, admittedly, I haven't come across any ex-LDS whose departure from the faith was not rooted in and precipitated by historical/doctrinal issues. Perhaps those are merely the types who frequent Mormon-themed MB's.

CKS


That makes sense to me. What person is going to come on a message board and say, "I left the Church because I cheated on my spouse and got booted." or "I really wanted to spend thousands of dollars in having my personality adjusted, and I couldn't do that and pay tithing at the same time, and besides most of my "adjustments" were done on weekend, and I couldn't go to church anyway."

Just some puppet hired by you.

The fact that you trivialize other people's very difficult journeys is telling.

By that flawed logic, anyone who converts to Mormonism from another church left that other church not because they had difficulties with doctrine or practice, but because they sinned, and couldn't deal with it, so moved on.

I don't trivialize anyone's spiritual quest, either into or out of the Church.

[_BishopRic]

Could you please give us even one statement/quote from a disbeliever who says she/he was looking for (and found) excuses to leave the church which resulted in her/his disbelief.

Of the many, many disbelievers I have encountered I have never come across even one who would claim the reason for their disbelief is because they were looking for an excuse to leave.

Thanks,

~dancer~

You misunderstand. What I think happens is the person choses to no longer believe. Some one thing tips the scale. Thisis what happens to people. We have some internal emotional event and then look for an answer to why we feel the way we do. This is the way panic attacks lead to major problems, such as agoraphobia. A person has an internal event, a burst of epinephrine, a random physical event. This causes feelings of anxiety. The person wants to explain to himself why he is so upset. He looks around to find something that is causing him to feel anxious. He then says to himself, "Oh, I must be worried about having to give that presentation at work on Monday. If I am so stressed out about it I probably won't do a good job." Then he doesn't. The next time he is supposed to make a presentation, he gets nervous (he doesn't need the random ephinephine this time, he produces it on his own, and it becomes a repeating cycle.

I think this is what happens. A person has questions, which eventually tip the scales. When the balance shifts to "the church must not be what is says it is, then the person looks to confirm that thought, and the lens he sees things through does not suddenly become clear, as critics would have us believe, but the tint changes, and now everything looks bad.

You're getting closer.

The part I agree with you on is that there is often "an event" that triggers the thinking/questioning/research. Most of us try to stay in our safe comfort zone, as long as it works. This is why most Mormons don't know much about the real history -- they're comfort with their "Mormon story" as it is.

But the reason more are leaving than ever before is that the issues that are common triggers (hearing of Joseph's polyandry, his multiple versions of the first vision, etc.) are so available at the push of a google keystroke...and they're off to the races. And I'll tell you, as one who did it, that when you read the defensive, attacking postures of the FARMS folks, you quickly ask, "wow, what are they getting so upset about if the claims are true? Hmmm..."

Where one goes from there depends much on family. You start weighing options...keep quiet, get loud, try the NOM route, resign...and the process takes a while, because it DOES change your total vision of what life's about!

[_beastie]

beastie wrote:


The funny thing is that there's plenty of LDS who STAY in the church who are sinning. So the idea that you have to leave the church to sin is plain nonsense anyway.



Again, a total misrepresentation of what I said. In fact, I specifically mentioned being excommunicated for sinning, which by all logic means that the sin preceded the excommunication. Are you on pain meds or something?

I didn't say YOU said it. I was referring to a common LDS myth, that people leave to sin.

Helpful hint: when people attribute something to you, normally they put your statement in the quote box. Or maybe address you specifically by name.

"Are on you pain meds or something?" Tut, tut, charity, insulting yet again? Are you frustrated because you've lost the argument and know it? ;)

[_charity]

Sure. Here's the link: http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?p=126103#126103

Uh, duh, the link is back to your post. It does not link to the study. I wanted to see the study. You can't provide that?

[_charity]

You're getting closer.

The part I agree with you on is that there is often "an event" that triggers the thinking/questioning/research. Most of us try to stay in our safe comfort zone, as long as it works. This is why most Mormons don't know much about the real history -- they're comfort with their "Mormon story" as it is.

But the reason more are leaving than ever before is that the issues that are common triggers (hearing of Joseph's polyandry, his multiple versions of the first vision, etc.) are so available at the push of a google keystroke...and they're off to the races. And I'll tell you, as one who did it, that when you read the defensive, attacking postures of the FARMS folks, you quickly ask, "wow, what are they getting so upset about if the claims are true? Hmmm..."

Where one goes from there depends much on family. You start weighing options...keep quiet, get loud, try the NOM route, resign...and the process takes a while, because it DOES change your total vision of what life's about!

People have been leaving the Church long before the internet was out there. We know that the end times are getting more and more dangerous. A recent article appeared with the title, "Korihor is back and he has a printing press." There have always been Korihors who want to destroy the Church. Their methods are getting more sophisticated, and they might reach more people.

The faithful will continue faithful. Those who are not will fall away. As Dr. Givens says, it is more about who we are, than what the evidence is.

[_charity]

beastie wrote:


The funny thing is that there's plenty of LDS who STAY in the church who are sinning. So the idea that you have to leave the church to sin is plain nonsense anyway.



Again, a total misrepresentation of what I said. In fact, I specifically mentioned being excommunicated for sinning, which by all logic means that the sin preceded the excommunication. Are you on pain meds or something?

I didn't say YOU said it. I was referring to a common LDS myth, that people leave to sin.

Helpful hint: when people attribute something to you, normally they put your statement in the quote box. Or maybe address you specifically by name.

"Are on you pain meds or something?" Tut, tut, charity, insulting yet again? Are you frustrated because you've lost the argument and know it? ;)

You are right. When I read one of your posts in a string of posts where everything I say is misread, misrepresented, or misunderstood, I shouldn't lump you in with the others. I will try to be more careful in the future. My apologies.

[_the road to hana]

As Dr. Givens says, it is more about who we are, than what the evidence is.

The evidence was there even before the Internet.

Prior to going online, people read books. The Internet certainly brings the information to a wider audience on an accelerated scale, but members weren't totally in the dark before that.

[_charity]

As Dr. Givens says, it is more about who we are, than what the evidence is.

The evidence was there even before the Internet.

Prior to going online, people read books. The Internet certainly brings the information to a wider audience on an accelerated scale, but members weren't totally in the dark before that.

Members have never had the excuse of being kept in the dark. I learned everything I read here back in 1960 before I joined the Church.

[_the road to hana]

As Dr. Givens says, it is more about who we are, than what the evidence is.

The evidence was there even before the Internet.

Prior to going online, people read books. The Internet certainly brings the information to a wider audience on an accelerated scale, but members weren't totally in the dark before that.

Members have never had the excuse of being kept in the dark. I learned everything I read here back in 1960 before I joined the Church.

Yes, so we've heard. From a kindly, elderly gentleman who served as the missionary to bring you into the church, a man well versed in all things Mormon who ferreted out every single corner of possibility to make sure there was no stone unturned in your study of the church prior to your baptism.

"Kept in the dark" is relative. It's easy to document that the church even today withholds information. That doesn't mean the information isn't available. But the church has also discouraged members from reading materials that would provide them with that information in the absence of the church giving it.

So there you have it.

[_BishopRic]

You're getting closer.

The part I agree with you on is that there is often "an event" that triggers the thinking/questioning/research. Most of us try to stay in our safe comfort zone, as long as it works. This is why most Mormons don't know much about the real history -- they're comfort with their "Mormon story" as it is.

But the reason more are leaving than ever before is that the issues that are common triggers (hearing of Joseph's polyandry, his multiple versions of the first vision, etc.) are so available at the push of a google keystroke...and they're off to the races. And I'll tell you, as one who did it, that when you read the defensive, attacking postures of the FARMS folks, you quickly ask, "wow, what are they getting so upset about if the claims are true? Hmmm..."

Where one goes from there depends much on family. You start weighing options...keep quiet, get loud, try the NOM route, resign...and the process takes a while, because it DOES change your total vision of what life's about!

People have been leaving the Church long before the internet was out there. We know that the end times are getting more and more dangerous. A recent article appeared with the title, "Korihor is back and he has a printing press." There have always been Korihors who want to destroy the Church. Their methods are getting more sophisticated, and they might reach more people.

The faithful will continue faithful. Those who are not will fall away. As Dr. Givens says, it is more about who we are, than what the evidence is.

You call "him" Korihor; I call him a whistle-blower. You call it "dangerous," I call it telling the truth.

Yes, the faithful (comfortable) will stay. As a friend says, "my mind is made up...don't bother me with the facts!"