SquareTwo

[_Daniel Peterson]

Yeah, it's pretty funny. Well, so it goes. Just as tribal loyalty seems to be important to Mormons, there must be something like "anti-tribal loyalty", or "tribal anti-loyalty" that is the corollary impulse amongst apostates.

Human nature, of course.

I don't think I'd describe it as "tribal loyalty," though. I won't comment further on the apostate side of things, but perhaps you'll see what I mean from my remarks below:

Speaking of tribal loyalty, I can totally believe that J. F. McConkie knows your testimony, and that that's good enough for him. Every fast Sunday a handful of people in the ward will stand up and publicly express their loyalty to the tribe, and everyone expects and welcomes that expression. It's all about everyone knowing that you are a believer, that you "know" that the church is true, stand by Joseph Smith, etc. People seldom really want to delve into specifics.

I don't believe that "loyalty to the tribe" is an adequate or accurate way of characterizing a conviction that the claims of the Church are true and that Joseph Smith was a prophet. Socially, I could take Church activity or leave it. But I do accept certain propositions as conforming to reality.

Can you imagine the squirming, and the awkwardness, if you stood up and bore your testimony about the lessons of the Flood, even though you knew the flood hadn't really happened on a global scale like the church teaches, but was either metaphor or just a local flood? Can you imagine the squirming and awkwardness if you bore your testimony of the lessons you learned from the metaphor of the Fall, even though you knew it hadn't literally happened in the way the church teaches?

I can and do bear my testimony of lessons to be learned from Flood and Fall. I would never, of course, bear testimony to my particular constructs of how they occurred, because those constructs are purely the result of my serious engagement with the relevant texts, and I don't regard them as revelation. In fact, I hold them fairly tentatively. But I think they put me well within the Mormon ballpark. From my point of view, you grossly overestimate the distance between me and a Bruce McConkie on such things.

I have been in quite a few Sunday School and Priesthood quorum meetings where someone took the discussion off the beaten path. Every single time something like evolution, conflicts between LDS doctrines about the Fall and the scientific record, and so forth have ever come up in any meeting I've attended over the years, it has been shut down by the teacher or someone else in the class, as soon as it becomes clear that material will be discussed which disagrees or challenges the Church's public teachings on the subjects.

My goal, when teaching such things, is to stay pretty close to the text. I am, however, as willing to engage in speculation as anybody in the Church is, and I do it a lot. I simply want to make sure that it's clearly distinguishable from what I would teach in Gospel Doctrine class or preach in sacrament meeting. I don't devote such opportunities to limited geographical models, either.

As long as one is known to have a testimony, as long as their loyalty to the tribe can be counted on, people simply don't want to know what else you may or may not believe.

That hasn't been my experience at all. People always want to know what I believe. And, in many settings, I'm happy to oblige. If asked, I would explain my speculations in Gospel Doctrine class, too. I've done so. No problem.

Instead it's ignored - people pretend there's unity of belief with their fellow members, so long as the Prime Directive, tribal loyalty, can be counted on.

But there is considerable unity of belief, and I don't think that "tribal loyalty" comes anywhere near to describing it. In fact, calling it "tribal loyalty" seems to me a very fundamental category error, rather like calling poetry "purple," or describing generosity as "angular."

If we could manage to sit down in a group with me, you, and Elder WhatsHisName the literalist, and hash out exactly what it is we believe about things like evolution, death before Adam, the global Flood, and so forth, I would bet good money that things would get awfully uncomfortable, at the very least Elder WhatsHisBucket would feel threatened, or scared, or challenged in some way.

But restricting it merely to a list of things where we view things differently would be an artificial and even question-begging approach.

If you were to ask me about my belief in real golden plates, genuine Nephites, the real restoration of priesthood authority, the physical resurrection of Christ, God's role in the creation of the universe, the appearance of the Father and the Son to Joseph Smith, the visit of Elijah to the Kirtland Temple, the reality of Moroni, the restoration of vicarious work for the dead, the doctrine of theosis or exaltation, the prophetic leadership of the Church, and etc., Elder WhatsHisName the Literalist would feel, and rightly so, that I was a genuine brother in the faith.

Thanks, again, for the civility. It's a refreshing change of pace.

[_Sethbag]

I think the problem is really one of internet anonymity. I'd seriously bet money that if many of us on the board got together at a BBQ or whatever, the discussions and arguments might go on with gusto, but most of us wouldn't be outright hostile toward each other. I've spent a lot of time in introspection over the last four years, since my apostasy, and I've come to realize that it really is very, very important to separate my intellectual disagreements with the faithful from my personal relationships with them.

In my own extended family, the overwhelming majority of folks are believing Mormons. On my wife's side, the majority still is, though it's steadily eroding over time*. The fact is, if I allowed myself to hate Mormons, I'd have to hate most of my family, extended family, in-laws, in-laws' spouses and families, etc. They're not my enemies, and I'm not theirs (though I suppose I do represent some sort of threat to their testimonies). Most of the people I knew really well growing up (outside of my high school friends) were Mormons. Essentially everyong I went to college with and was friends with at BYU were Mormons.

The whole idea of being enemies with Mormons is really insane, when I think about it. I probably felt more hostility toward Mormon apologists right around the time of my apostasy, but it's been cooling steadily since**, as I realize these are just Mormons like the kind I would undoubtedly have been friends with in college or throughout most of my life, had our paths crossed.

Obviously I disagree with Daniel's beliefs. Obviously I believe that some of his rationalizations and so forth have the effect of helping people continue believing things that don't deserve to be believed. He surely believes my views on these subjects are mistaken. Oh well. In the grand scheme of human history, this is a very, very human thing to be engaged in, on both sides. I don't want to attack him, or be his enemy, or whatever, over things like this. I'm surrounded by Mormons, and they're surrounded by me. ;-) Life will be pleasanter for all involved if we can find ways of enjoying fellowship without overtly antagonizing each other.

*just had another brother-in-law come out as an unbeliever to the rest of the family at a multi-day get-together. Oh, the drama! There was some serious angst, emotion, hand-wringing, etc. for a couple of hours, until people realized it didn't have to change how they thought and felt about him. I guess the fact that his unbelief had already been preceded by the unbelief of multiple other siblings had sort of taken some of the horror out of it.

** Except toward Pahoran, of course - he's just an %!&#@!&.

[_Sethbag]

Reading through this thread has made me realize that, for me personally, the most difficult aspect of participating on this message board is that I do so from the posture of one who, beyond doubt, knows things to be true that are almost universally (on this board, that is) rejected as fantasy.

I'm sure Nightlion can empathize with you on this one - he knows the feeling.

Now, I have come to understand, and even appreciate to a great extent, the many reasons for which the exmormons here now see things the way they do. I have intellectually traced the path from belief to disbelief. I comprehend its contours. And yet my superior knowledge—knowledge that transcends this existence and places me, figuratively speaking, on a plane above it—permits me to see things as they really are rather than how they can be made to appear.

I cannot say that I know exactly what you mean, because I haven't been inside your head, listening to your inner thoughts, and observing your intellectual and extra-intellectual experiences. I can observe your comments on the board, however, and from some of the things you've said about organic evolution, I can say with great confidence that your position of superior knowledge isn't nearly as superior as you think it is.

[_Some Schmo]

I think the problem is really one of internet anonymity. I'd seriously bet money that if many of us on the board got together at a BBQ or whatever, the discussions and arguments might go on with gusto, but most of us wouldn't be outright hostile toward each other. I've spent a lot of time in introspection over the last four years, since my apostasy, and I've come to realize that it really is very, very important to separate my intellectual disagreements with the faithful from my personal relationships with them.

Oh, I think you're probably right. I will say, for my own part, that I treat people on this board the same way I do in real life, which is civilly right up until they're pricks to me. Then I don't feel any need to be nice to them at all, and rather enjoy mirroring their own behavior back to them. It's just the kind of guy I am.

In my own extended family, the overwhelming majority of folks are believing Mormons. On my wife's side, the majority still is, though it's steadily eroding over time*. The fact is, if I allowed myself to hate Mormons, I'd have to hate most of my family, extended family, in-laws, in-laws' spouses and families, etc. They're not my enemies, and I'm not theirs (though I suppose I do represent some sort of threat to their testimonies). Most of the people I knew really well growing up (outside of my high school friends) were Mormons. Essentially everyong I went to college with and was friends with at BYU were Mormons.

The whole idea of being enemies with Mormons is really insane, when I think about it. I probably felt more hostility toward Mormon apologists right around the time of my apostasy, but it's been cooling steadily since**, as I realize these are just Mormons like the kind I would undoubtedly have been friends with in college or throughout most of my life, had our paths crossed.

I don't know any Mormons any more except the ones in my family (I've moved around a lot for work). I certainly don't hate them. I became good friends with a Mormon from work a few years ago (he's since left the company) and it never bothered me that he was a Mormon. It's the same with anyone from any religion. I like people for who they are, not what religion they do/don't belong to. I tend to not like defensive/arrogant pricks, no matter what their beliefs are.

Obviously I disagree with Daniel's beliefs. Obviously I believe that some of his rationalizations and so forth have the effect of helping people continue believing things that don't deserve to be believed. He surely believes my views on these subjects are mistaken. Oh well. In the grand scheme of human history, this is a very, very human thing to be engaged in, on both sides. I don't want to attack him, or be his enemy, or whatever, over things like this. I'm surrounded by Mormons, and they're surrounded by me. ;-) Life will be pleasanter for all involved if we can find ways of enjoying fellowship without overtly antagonizing each other.

I don't want to attack him, or be his enemy, or whatever, over things like his beliefs either. I'm not interested in being his enemy at all, actually. I do like to attack his behavior, however, because it's worthwhile to do so. It's how I cope with his lack of civility toward people. I know it's not going to change who he is, but I don't do it for his benefit. I do it for mine. Other than a coping mechanism, I really do find it entertaining. Maybe that's the therapeutic value it holds. Who knows?

I don't treat all religious people (on this board or in real life) like I treat Dan or a few others here. It's totally a reciprocal relationship with me. They get back what they give out. As I’ve mentioned many times before, some of my favorite people in the world are deeply religious.

I also realize that my response to Dan is likely to make me look bad, and I'm totally fine with it. His behavior certainly makes him look bad, and since I'm mimicking it, it's likely some of that will rub off. Some people may relate, others won't. But I'm just not interested in impressing anyone. The days of trying to impress people or please them left with my youth. I'm more interested in articulating my sense of reality than something superficial like garnering the admiration of strangers.

In the end, it's all just fun and games. I don’t take any of this too seriously. It’s just a fun diversion.

[_harmony]

Yup. I'm a true test of that, the wants and desires of a few here notwithstanding.

I'm confident that you're talking about me. yet I have no wants and desires in this matter.

If the shoe doesn't fit, Dan, please don't try to force it onto your foot. You'll get blisters that way.

I can sustain and support the prophet and leaders today, without ever once abdicating or subjucating my own personal inspiration.

And you can affirm that the president of the Church holds the keys of a priesthood authority that, you declare, you reject.

Indeed yes. I sustain my leaders, at the same time that I refuse to allow them any authority over me. I don't see why this is difficult to understand. I also sustain my Relief Society president and my visiting teachers, yet I do not allow them to have any authority over me. I am the only authority I recognize.

[_Nightlion]

TVI:

I am really too busy to read this much. Can you put a question in a nutshell please.

No.

And you would probably benefit substantially from reading the entire passage. But, the choice is yours.

I am still waiting to engage your defense of claiming your C&E is made sure.

I am quite confident that you know virtually nothing about such things.

Otherwise, you’d not be in the shockingly tragic circumstances in which you currently find yourself.

Shockingly tragic circumstances of what? I have an advanced degree beyond C&E made sure. God does his own work outside the LDS box.

Your dismissiveness cannot mask your weakness.

[_harmony]

I think being BIC is exactly like being born into a tribe. Converts have different experiences to draw from, but BIC only knows being Mormon. There is no other reality, no other experiences from which to view life.

Which probably explains the numbers of converts who simply walk away.