"Bad parts" of Mormon History...forget about it?

[_beastie]

I predict that crocket just won't come back to this thread, or if he does, he will start arguing that these teachings aren't "doctrine" (which is irrelevant), or do another "evil anonymity" rant.

It just makes me scratch my head that someone like bob asks for evidence of such a well known LDS teaching. What kind of damage control is that? It's like a defense attorney who KNOWS the other side has fingerprints linking his/her client to the crime demanding fingerprint evidence.

[_John Larsen]

"curing homosexuality,"

How is straightening our the queers considered a bad thing?

Yikes! I hope you don't carry this sort of stuff over into the real world.

[_wenglund]

Assuming for the moment that what you suggest above is both accurate and proportional (I believe it may open to at least some question--not to be confused with my not being able to accept this), can you, as a former member, respect these alleged LDS beliefs regarding former members, and accept LDS as they supposedly are, and get along with them and love them UNCONDITIONALLY?

What if the LDS also went so far as to, under the guise of UNCONDITIONAL love, CONDITIONED their association with you (or their "healing") on things like you former members needing to admit that you are wrong in the ways mentioned and need to apologize? Would you, as a former member, acquiess out of respect and acceptance and unconditional love for LDS?

I ask because that is the reverse of the one-sided notion some former members may suggest is the way to "bridge the divide" between members and nonmembers...amen and amen. ;-)

You're basically saying what Ray has said before you - that it is a deeply ingrained and even important LDS belief that apostate leave due to sin and other myriad flaws. We cannot expect LDS to change their basic theology.

But reality is that LDS teachings change quite a bit over time. Whether or not this will ever change, I have no idea.

If you are correct, however, and abandoning the belief that apostates "leave due to sin" would be the equivalent of ME admitting to sin and error I did not commit, then, no, it will never, never change.

But I'm curious. Would the LDS church ceasing to teach that "apostates leave due to sin" really be the equivalent of me admitting to an error and sin I never made? If we delve into your logic deeply enough, it would certainly appear that you are actually asserting that apostates really DO leave due to sin, and to deny that would be to deny truth and reality.

Beastie, please look a little more carefully at my post (applying some of the reading comprehension skills you allege to teach). Pay particular attention to the mark at the end of each sentence. Note the question marks? This should suggest to your mind that I was asking YOU questions based on YOUR assumptions/logic, and as such, I was not "saying what Ray has said before" nor did I mention my logic in that post.

Please also read my questions in the context of the discussion between Rick and I. By so doing, you may find that by your answering "no" to my questions you have essentially supported the point I have previously been trying to make to Rick, though in reverse to the one-sided view he has taken on the matter.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Something about LDS makes a good amount of people sort of "weep and wail" for a bit when they leave, it appears to me. I think I'd be interested in finding out why that was so, rather than calling them weepers and wailers -- that sort of strikes me as not recognizing their legitimate gripes with a Church they grew up in (in some cases), that they once devoted themselves to, that they once considered a fundamental part of their life. I'd be looking inward at the Church, rather than outward to the former members themselves as to what caused their distress. Of course I can't do that, 'cause it's not my Church.

I can tell you exactly why this happens. LDS are taught that "apostates" leave the church due to sin, wanting to sin, laziness, pride, hurt feelings, or some other demeaning and belittling "reason". LDS are taught this over and over and over and over and over.

Assuming for the moment that what you suggest above is both accurate and proportional (I believe it may open to at least some question--not to be confused with my not being able to accept this), can you, as a former member, respect these alleged LDS beliefs regarding former members, and accept LDS as they supposedly are, and get along with them and love them UNCONDITIONALLY?

What if the LDS also went so far as to, under the guise of UNCONDITIONAL love, CONDITIONED their association with you (or their "healing") on things like you former members needing to admit that you are wrong in the ways mentioned and need to apologize? Would you, as a former member, acquiess out of respect and acceptance and unconditional love for LDS?

I ask because that is the reverse of the one-sided notion some former members may suggest is the way to "bridge the divide" between members and nonmembers...amen and amen. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You are so dense Wade! YOU are not the church. YOU did not do the wrongs I speak of. Can you not separate the church from...YOU?! Why would a member need to "condition" their love for an exmo (or vice versa) on anything the church does, or did?

I would absolutely love the member unconditionally, and I do many Mormons, despite the fact that they feel the way they do about me, and my path out. They often have been able to get past the need to re-convert me. It took a while, but it is possible. They still have a "testimony." They still believe as Mormons do. They just don't buy into the charge to constantly 'warn their neighbor."

Hello McFly!

I see that you have a marked intolerance for my reasonable belief that, in a way, I am "the Church" (I am a proud member, and thus rightly a representative of "the Church", and I have supported, ascribe to, and advocated the beliefs and practices of "the Church"--including those towards which you have flung your accusations), and accordingly you have consider me dense for not seeing it YOUR way.

In light of this, you may find the first connotation of the word "bigot" interesting: 1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

Lest you think me somewhat alone in believing that accusations hurled against the group or organization I belong to is an accusation hurled against me, please note the third connotation of the word "prejudice": unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.

Now, I am disinclined to label you as bigot, but I do think it may prove beneficial for you to self-assess whether you have a tendancy towards prejudice against "the Church" to which I belong. In so doing, you may then avoid inadvertantly saying things to Church members about their Church which fly in the face of your claims of unconditional love and acceptance towards them, and chance undermining whatever divide-bridging you have done under the guise thereof.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

Wade,

The problem isn't my reading comprehension. The problem is that you apparently type before you think. You do not think through the logical consequences of your statements. But I'll take the time to painfully go through each step for your benefit.

wade:

Assuming for the moment that what you suggest above is both accurate and proportional (I believe it may open to at least some question--not to be confused with my not being able to accept this), can you, as a former member, respect these alleged LDS beliefs regarding former members, and accept LDS as they supposedly are, and get along with them and love them UNCONDITIONALLY?

Let's play the question mark game, boys and girls!!

No, I cannot respect the LDS belief that apostates leave due to sin or some other flaw. The teaching is prejudicial and not founded in reality. The teaching helps create the setting that destroys personal relationships.

I don't believe in "unconditional love" for strangers. I believe in unconditional love for family and friends. Yes, I still unconditionally love my family members who have been exposed to and believe (to various degrees) this teaching.

What if the LDS also went so far as to, under the guise of UNCONDITIONAL love, CONDITIONED their association with you (or their "healing") on things like you former members needing to admit that you are wrong in the ways mentioned and need to apologize? Would you, as a former member, acquiess out of respect and acceptance and unconditional love for LDS?

No, I would not agree to admit I am wrong and need to apologize under the "guise of unconditional love". I would not acquiesce out of respect and acceptance. To do so would be an abdication of personal integrity.

I ask because that is the reverse of the one-sided notion some former members may suggest is the way to "bridge the divide" between members and nonmembers...amen and amen. ;-)

Well, my goodness, you mean you asked those questions not to actually get answers, but to prove a point? Gee, and I could have shortcut all this by simply responding to your point. But wait, then you would be cornered and deny it was ever your point to begin with and tap dance about question marks.

Unless you're even more disconnected from logic and reality than I already suspect, your point is this:

LDS people should not be required to respect the "beliefs" (or lack thereof) of apostates in the name of "unconditional love". Nor should they be expected to abdicate their own personal integrity and agree to being wrong or needing to apologize when they do not view themselves as being wrong.

Now let's follow this to the logical conclusion, and see if Wade can follow along or gets pulled under by the current once again.

The topic of discussion is the belief and teaching that apostates lose faith due to sin or other flaws.

For your above "question marks" to make any sense in the context of this discussion, you would have to be saying that the belief that apostates, in fact, do NOT all leave due to sin is not an idea LDS should be forced to respect in the name of "unconditional love". Nor should they be required to abdicate their own personal belief - that apostates really do leave because of sin - or apologize for this belief in the name of "unconditional love".

The foundation behind all of this is that, in fact, LDS do believe that apostates leave due to sin. They believe it is a true teaching reflective of actual reality, and to abdicate that belief would be denying truth and a loss of integrity.

Gee, wouldn't it have been nice if I could have just shortcutted to your point. But no, we have to play the game.

[_BishopRic]

[
I see that you have a marked intolerance for my reasonable belief...

No, I find it grossly unreasonable, and so unlike reasonable Mormons, that it is not worthy of further discussion.

"I hope that helps you understand your confusion."

[_wenglund]

[
I see that you have a marked intolerance for my reasonable belief...

No, I find it grossly unreasonable

That makes perfect sense that you would think so given your evident intollerance of my opposing view (even in spite of the noted dictionary definition that supports my opposing view). Views that are not tolerated tend not to be viewed as reasonable.

...and so unlike reasonable Mormons, that it is not worthy of further discussion.

That, too, makes perfect sense. To your mind, "reasonable" Mormons are those who will see it YOUR way, and unreasonable Mormons are those who see it differently.

And, intollerance of opposing views, by its very nature, deems unworthy further opposing discussion.

Now, on the off chance that you are open to seeing if your misnamed "UNCONDITIONAL approach" works in reverse, check out Beastie's answers above to my questions. (Hint: at least with her it doesn't work). But, such evidence is opposing to your point of veiw (that is, when applied in reverse), and thus can't be tolerated. So why bother? Never mind.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Wade,

The problem isn't my reading comprehension. The problem is that you apparently type before you think. You do not think through the logical consequences of your statements. But I'll take the time to painfully go through each step for your benefit.

wade:

Assuming for the moment that what you suggest above is both accurate and proportional (I believe it may open to at least some question--not to be confused with my not being able to accept this), can you, as a former member, respect these alleged LDS beliefs regarding former members, and accept LDS as they supposedly are, and get along with them and love them UNCONDITIONALLY?

Let's play the question mark game, boys and girls!!

No, I cannot respect the LDS belief that apostates leave due to sin or some other flaw. The teaching is prejudicial and not founded in reality. The teaching helps create the setting that destroys personal relationships.

I don't believe in "unconditional love" for strangers. I believe in unconditional love for family and friends. Yes, I still unconditionally love my family members who have been exposed to and believe (to various degrees) this teaching.

What if the LDS also went so far as to, under the guise of UNCONDITIONAL love, CONDITIONED their association with you (or their "healing") on things like you former members needing to admit that you are wrong in the ways mentioned and need to apologize? Would you, as a former member, acquiess out of respect and acceptance and unconditional love for LDS?

No, I would not agree to admit I am wrong and need to apologize under the "guise of unconditional love". I would not acquiesce out of respect and acceptance. To do so would be an abdication of personal integrity.

I ask because that is the reverse of the one-sided notion some former members may suggest is the way to "bridge the divide" between members and nonmembers...amen and amen. ;-)

Well, my goodness, you mean you asked those questions not to actually get answers, but to prove a point? Gee, and I could have shortcut all this by simply responding to your point. But wait, then you would be cornered and deny it was ever your point to begin with and tap dance about question marks.

Unless you're even more disconnected from logic and reality than I already suspect, your point is this:

LDS people should not be required to respect the "beliefs" (or lack thereof) of apostates in the name of "unconditional love". Nor should they be expected to abdicate their own personal integrity and agree to being wrong or needing to apologize when they do not view themselves as being wrong.

Now let's follow this to the logical conclusion, and see if Wade can follow along or gets pulled under by the current once again.

The topic of discussion is the belief and teaching that apostates lose faith due to sin or other flaws.

For your above "question marks" to make any sense in the context of this discussion, you would have to be saying that the belief that apostates, in fact, do NOT all leave due to sin is not an idea LDS should be forced to respect in the name of "unconditional love". Nor should they be required to abdicate their own personal belief - that apostates really do leave because of sin - or apologize for this belief in the name of "unconditional love".

The foundation behind all of this is that, in fact, LDS do believe that apostates leave due to sin. They believe it is a true teaching reflective of actual reality, and to abdicate that belief would be denying truth and a loss of integrity.

Gee, wouldn't it have been nice if I could have just shortcutted to your point. But no, we have to play the game.

What you call "a game", I call using carfully designed object lessons to help Rick understand my point from a different angel (whether he agrees with it or not), and from a source he is more tolerant of (one of his fellow ex-Mormons), which, because of his intolerance for opposing views, he has yet to be able to get. I thought him worth the try, though I am not holding my breath that he will be any more openminded about it than you are (except unwittingly so).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

Your "carefully designed object lessons" have always been a joke. Even other believers on ZLMB thought so. I know this firsthand.

Aside from that, you're dodging the fact that I understood exactly what you were saying with your "object lesson". And you're dodging the inevitable logical conclusion I already delineated. Apparently the idea that apostates leave due to sin and other flaws is sacrosanct, and to abandon it would be a loss of personal integrity.

[_wenglund]

Your "carefully designed object lessons" have always been a joke. Even other believers on ZLMB thought so. I know this firsthand.

They were very much a joke, and one that I got you to play on yourselves, though your irony deficiency and other humor impairments prevented you from getting it. Oh well...that was over 4 years ago. I've moved on. Hopefully, for your sake, you eventually will too.

Aside from that, you're dodging the fact that I understood exactly what you were saying with your "object lesson".

I inferred as much to Rick. Are you now equating "inferred" with "dodge"?

And you're dodging the inevitable logical conclusion I already delineated. Apparently the idea that apostates leave due to sin and other flaws is sacrosanct, and to abandon it would be a loss of personal integrity.

That is certainly the belief of some, though not all, members--not unlike, according to Rick, the idea of some ex-Mormons that LDS beliefs and practices regarding blacks and gays were/are wrong and in need of apology is sacrosanct, and to abandon it would allegedly prevent healing and therapeutic help.

If you actually got my point, such ideas on either side are impediments to bridging the divide. What I propose instead, is to shift from such mutually judgemental and conditional perceptions (i.e. let go the prejudices) and focus instead on doing what works in terms satisfying the basic human needs to love and be love, respect and be respected, and to become the very best people possible (as we each respectively determine).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-