The Best Reason for Sinning....

[_The Nehor]

Congratulations on killing your conscience.

You are a fun guy
to converse, chat, I hand that to you.
But How am I supposed to explain to you my godless moral standards.
If you didn't get it by now, you'll never get it.
Stick with your Ten Commandments.

I'm just laughing because I don't believe you're free of guilt entirely. Even if it's lessened. Anyone incapable of feeling guilt would scare me. You don't scare me.

[_The Dude]

Truthdancer started this thread so she can overrule my opinion, but I just want to say that I'm very irritated that The Nehor has turned page 2 of this thread into his rubber room. I'm happy to see, however, that Some Schmo, Antischock8, and Mahonri, at least, have not taken his bait.

[_beastie]

Where was dude's original statement made? Maybe we should move it over here. I remember him saying something on this, but don't trust my memory.

I do think it is likely that many - not all, but many - believers experience some sort of cognitive break with the religion in order to be able to even conceive it's not true. Since reading more about how belief is constructed, and how powerfully protected important beliefs are in our minds (from processes not fully under our control) sometimes it seems surprising that anyone can lose a cherished previous belief, no matter how strong the evidence is against it. I've thought about it in terms of tribe - that as long as a member of the tribe feels totally "in" with that tribe, feels secure and dependent on that tribe, it might be impossible for that member to recognize the wrong-doing of that same tribe, while readily recognizing the same wrong-doing in other, competing tribes. But if the member of the tribe experiences some sort of emotional "break" from the tribe, so that member feels less protected, less secure, maybe that member starts to be able to "see" his tribe's behavior whereas in the past he could not.

In my own experience, I had a truly miserable mission that defied every expectation I had fostered by the church, and even open promises made in various ways. Then I had a truly miserable marriage, after praying for confirmation before marrying this temple worthy Mormon. So even though I never "sinned" in the ways implied in this thread, it could be these circumstances provided some sort of emotional "break" with my tribe. I do know that when I was miserable enough in my marriage to go see a nonLDS counselor, I began praying to God for him to help me "see things as they truly are, and not just as I believe them to be". I was referring to the dynamics of my marriage, but that's around the time I picked up Mormon Enigma and my world changed.

So in my case, one could argue that an emotional break of some sort occurred already to enable me to feel less bonded to my "tribe" and be able to consider with an open mind that maybe the church really wasn't true after all. My family, in the past, oversimplified this by insinuating that my bad marriage "jaded" me and that's why I lost faith. I really think they blame my exhusband for my loss of faith, which, in my opinion, is ridiculous. What I'm saying is slightly different than that, and I will not allow it to be otherwise oversimplified.

But I do know people who say they had very positive, happy experiences in the LDS culture/faith, and still lost faith when exposed to its history, so my theory appears to fall flat there.

[_truth dancer]

Where was dude's original statement made? Maybe we should move it over here. I remember him saying something on this, but don't trust my memory.

Hey Beastie, I think you read Dude's comment as I did the first time, but then realized he was probably saying something else.

I first read the statement as Dude saying, I started the thread to challenge his opinion, but I think it was supposed to be read:

Since I was the originator of the thread I can override his opinion which he then posted.

Does that even make any sense? LOL

Anyway... maybe you are referring to something else. In that case, disregard everything! (smile)

Now, in terms of Dude's comment on this thread suggesting we must sin with read intent (smile)... it is on page one.

:-)

td

Did I totally confuse everyone? ;-)

[_beastie]

Now I'm totally confused!

[_The Dude]

Oops! Sorry for the confusion folks. My opinion on the importance of sin is on page 1.

My opinion on The Nehor being a useless troll who ruins countless threads is at the end of page 2. Truthdancer is free to overrule my opinion about him since she started this thread, and furthermore, because she exchanged posts with Nehore... Truthdancer might not find him quite as vacuous as I do.

Two different things!

[_guy sajer]

Cause beer tastes frigg'n awesome, dude!

[_truth dancer]

Beastie... disregard my previous post.

Here is the quote from Dude. :-)

There may be some over-emphasis on "sin" as a cause of disbelief in Mormonism, but I would not deny that sinning is an important part of the overall disbelief process. In the setup, certain actions are labeled "sin" and members are warned that they must adhere to the rules or else something bad will happen. When a member breaks a rule, and discovers that nothing bad actually happened, this is actually an important first step in disbelief, or it can serve to confirm doubts about the belief system. Either way, breaking the rules is important. It shows who is boss, who is in control, who has the right to believe or disbelieve at will. It would be very hard to break out of a rigid belief system like Mormonism without breaking rules (i.e. sinning). So, it is correct and accurate for LDS leaders who talk about sin being a mechanism towards disbelief, in Mormonism as for every other system of social control. The only problem is the way they talk about it from only the believer's point of view, but it is probably hard for them to see it in any other way. I would suggest that if they tried sinning, with real intent, they might reach a higher level of understanding on this issue.

OK... now responding to Dude's post.

I don't think one must break the rules to move on or to let go of belief. I didn't (unless one of the rules is to seek for answers.. smile).

There are some "commandments" that make sense to me as general guidelines for life, for example not smoking. I don't feel I have to smoke in order to demonstrate I am in control. In fact I think if I chose to do something I find unhealthy in order to prove I am in control I am sort of giving them a weird power, in my response.

OTOH, I do think it is important (regardless of what faith tradition one is leaving) for each individual to let go of the indoctrination (brainwashing/conditioning), and discover what is truly healthy or unhealthy for ones own life. Of course this often ends up with behavior that might not be in line with previous beliefs.

I have observed that some people who lose belief struggle with this; their whole lives they have been taught a particular truth and after realizing it is not true, they don't quite know what is or is not meaningful or appropriate or healthy. There is often a time when people flounder a bit as they come to terms with their new found beliefs.


td

[_solomarineris]

Congratulations on killing your conscience.

You are a fun guy
to converse, chat, I hand that to you.
But How am I supposed to explain to you my godless moral standards.
If you didn't get it by now, you'll never get it.
Stick with your Ten Commandments.

I'm just laughing because I don't believe you're free of guilt entirely. Even if it's lessened. Anyone incapable of feeling guilt would scare me. You don't scare me.

Nehor,
You're deluded beyond repair, I feel fine, whenever sinning comes into question, in fact I revel in sinning.
No matter how hard I try, I don't think I'll ever catch up with that Elohim guy.
But he knows, I signed up to face that Bastard.
If he ever shows up!
So far he's acting like a Coward.

[_beastie]

Whew, confusion over.

We just have to be careful not to over-generalize. I think that there may be as many different "paths" to the loss of faith as there are apostates. I think the only generalization we can safely make is that, at some point, the potential apostate had to be willing and able to even consider that the church might not be true.

In other words, to refer back to Tal's old question: If the church weren't true, would you want to know it? Potential apostates must answer yes.

Other than that, it's highly individual. Dude's idea wouldn't have worked for me because I beat myself up with guilt over my sins of omission, I don't think a sin of commission would have done anything other than give myself a bigger club and provide a "reason" why God wouldn't answer my prayer about the truth of the church. In other words, had I been "sinning", I think I would have been stuck in the church even longer. But as it was, I knew I really was doing all that I was capable of doing, and was just as worthy as those other members who weren't struggling with their faith, so that "issue" didn't have to be factored in.