Breaking Away

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_sock puppet
_Emeritus
Posts: 17063
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: Breaking Away

Post by _sock puppet »

stemelbow wrote:
sock puppet wrote:I think there is more LDS apostates that go directly to non-belief, do not pass another religion 'and do not collect $200', than those that leave many other religions.


We can think anything we want, I suppose. Anyone one of us. But the facts are facts. There is [are] far more atheists who were never LDS than there are atheists who were LDS. In fact, there are far more atheists who were Protestant than there are atheists who were LDS. There are far more atheists who were Catholic....

Anyway, your wish here is just mere fantasy, SP.

I think this is due to how disapproving other Mormons (family, friends, neighbors) are when someone stops believing LDS teachings. They are ostracized and so that apostate starts re-evaluating from the bottom up, and takes a 'prove it to me' (evidentialist, reliabilist) approach before he or she is going to be snookered again. Before a Mormon takes that leap, he or she has pretty much been pulled and tugged for so long that he or she has clearly sorted out that this is not for him or her. Once finally extracted, he or she is emotionally spent in the belief area, he or she is downright skeptical of anything anyone else has suggested, even that there might be a god. So non-belief it is, until god's existence is proven, with evidence this time.


I think there are more former LDS who either have officially joined another religion or believe in God but no particular religion than there are atheists who were once LDS. Perhaps it would be interesting to see how it all breaks down. What percentage of former LDS are Hindu, or Baptist, or non-denominational, or whatever? Who knows maybe your arbitrary guess will come up registering some significant percentage--like 18% or something. I don't know.

Many that participate in other religions, less socially rigid than Mormonism, do not frown so much on their family, friends and neighbors that stop attending. The break is easier. And so before the entire belief construct has to be decimated to leave (as usually the social net of Mormonism demands; zeezrom is case in point), members of other religions that begin to question, feel uneasy, doubt the church they attend, they might try out another church for a month or two. Their neighbors are not banishing them, telling their children not to play with your children, etc. as is so frequent the case when a Mormon household apostatizes. So the break is not as severe with all held beliefs as the schism necessary for one to stop being actively Mormon.


You don't even seem to know if any of this is the case. Ah well...speculaton works sometimes.

Now I expect some TBM poster here will say this is all silly, but the proof is, as they say, in the pudding. Of course, that poster might say Mormonism is not unique in this regard, but he certainly won't venture an alternate hypothesis. But maybe there is one: Mormonism causes one not to believe in god.


That would be a ridiculous hypothesis since, for starters, there were those who did not believe in God pre-1830.

stem, so many non sequiturs in a single post, and only one lifetime to try to untangle them. I'll pass. Your post stands as a testament to stupidity.

Go, take two college classes: reading comprehension and introduction to logic. Then come back and report. Now, do as your told--it's the Mormon thing to do.
_Ceeboo
_Emeritus
Posts: 7625
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 1:58 am

Re: Breaking Away

Post by _Ceeboo »

Hey Stem,

Although I have no confidence that post will bring value to our collective dialouge, I will give it another try and see where it goes.

stemelbow wrote:
We can think anything we want, I suppose. Anyone one of us. But the facts are facts. There is [are] far more atheists who were never LDS than there are atheists who were LDS. In fact, there are far more atheists who were Protestant than there are atheists who were LDS. There are far more atheists who were Catholic....


??
I do not have a clue what the point is that you are trying to make here.
Whatever it is, I would certainly agree that there are many, many, many more people who are Atheist/Catholic/Protestant than there are people who are LDS. (I don't believe you will get much argument from anyone on that)

I think there are more former LDS who either have officially joined another religion or believe in God but no particular religion than there are atheists who were once LDS.


In my experience, this is entirely not true.


That would be a ridiculous hypothesis since, for starters, there were those who did not believe in God pre-1830.
[/quote]


?????????
I am confused

Peace,
Ceeboo
_Nightlion
_Emeritus
Posts: 9899
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 8:11 pm

Re: Breaking Away

Post by _Nightlion »

sock puppet wrote:
1-do you know if there is in fact a Santa Claus?

2-do you know if there is in fact an Easter Bunny?

What makes the question of the existence of diety any different? There is no credible evidence of any of the three.


We have volumes of the Word of God..............Santa: "Ho, ho, ho, merry Christmas, supposedly. Easter Bunny: Lots of eggs and rabbits, "tell me 'bout the rabbits George."

God told us he created all things by the word of his power and commands that we worship him and keep his commandments that we might be (somewhat) like him and have the greatest possible joy.
Santa is a mean trick so parents can be nice without being trampled.
Easter bunny's got eggs, and chocolate edible images of himself.

God has been consistently represented in the deepest most esoteric of ways not easily found out but remarkably consistent down throughout recorded time, which proves him not arbitrary to man's musings but strictly under the commanding control of the same God who blesses one of a city and two of a country down throughout time in exactly the same way even when there is no possible way some have ever heard of the others. And these blessed saints suffer all manner of persecution and death for their faith, rejoicing in the goodness of God which has greatly enlarged their souls.
Santa makes kids happy in the thought of fortunate generosity coming their way. Easter Bunny's got eggs and rabbits.

God claims that he spoke and everything was made. Science today is viewing for the first time the EVIDENCE that all elements are reduced to waves that obey mechanically to remain in balance without accounting for how they have mass which mystery begins the discovery of God in all things.

I know God, having forty years of truly great experience and interaction with him in many varied but all splendidly joyous ways. I have never met neither do I expect to meet Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny

I could go on and on and on I am certain you realize that. So don't be silly anymore about sacred stuff. Please, if you can help it.
The Apocalrock Manifesto and Wonders of Eternity: New Mormon Theology
https://www.docdroid.net/KDt8RNP/the-apocalrock-manifesto.pdf
https://www.docdroid.net/IEJ3KJh/wonders-of-eternity-2009.pdf
My YouTube videos:HERE
_stemelbow
_Emeritus
Posts: 5872
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: Breaking Away

Post by _stemelbow »

SP,

The non sequitur is yours. Your under the assumption that since LDS folks are more disapproving of those who stop believingin the Church they go, more often, straight to unbelief altogether.

hey you might be right that there are more LDS who go straight to unbelief than those of other religions. We simply don't know that. But your conclusion does not necessarily follow. There might be less percentage-wise who go faster to atheism. It may not be the disapproval of family and friends that drive people to atheism at all.
Love ya tons,
Stem


I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
_stemelbow
_Emeritus
Posts: 5872
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: Breaking Away

Post by _stemelbow »

Ceeboo wrote:??
I do not have a clue what the point is that you are trying to make here.
Whatever it is, I would certainly agree that there are many, many, many more people who are Atheist/Catholic/Protestant than there are people who are LDS. (I don't believe you will get much argument from anyone on that)


That's not what I said, Ceeboo. SP is suggesting there are more former LDS people who go straight to atheism after they stop believing in the LDS religion than anywhere else. I say, "hogwash". Afterall we already know there are more former Catholics that are atheists than former LDS atheists. There are more former Protestants that are atheists, than there are former LDS who are atheists.

In my experience, this is entirely not true.


I don't know what to make of your experience, Ceeboo. I have known many former LDS and it seems to me more are non-atheists than atheists. I'm guessing that my anecdotal is representative of the whole. Perhaps you are thinking of former LDS who post on message boards like this? I don't know.


?????????
I am confused

Peace,
Ceeboo


Sp suggested that an alternate hypothesis to his is that Mormonism causes atheism, essentially. I think that's an absurdity since there were atheists pre-1830. There are probably plenty of factors that cause non-belief in God.
Love ya tons,
Stem


I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Breaking Away

Post by _Themis »

stemelbow wrote:That's not what I said, Ceeboo. SP is suggesting there are more former LDS people who go straight to atheism after they stop believing in the LDS religion than anywhere else. I say, "hogwash". Afterall we already know there are more former Catholics that are atheists than former LDS atheists. There are more former Protestants that are atheists, than there are former LDS who are atheists.


Please stem, stop the insanity. You know people are talking about percentages, not total populations. I would add that this is also the group that was born in their respective religion.

I don't know what to make of your experience, Ceeboo. I have known many former LDS and it seems to me more are non-atheists than atheists. I'm guessing that my anecdotal is representative of the whole. Perhaps you are thinking of former LDS who post on message boards like this? I don't know.


This is a more interesting question. Ceeboo I think is more familiar with the former believing LDS population that knows the evidence against the church. I think they mostly do become atheist/agnostic. This group in my opinion is a smaller group then those who leave the church in their late teens or twenties. I could see this group make up a large portion of non-religious. Some return later in life. Now the biggest group due to missionary work is the group that probably represents over half the church. They are the convert who usually left weeks to months after being baptized and no longer see themselves as LDS. I think most of them probably move on to some other religion.
42
_Ceeboo
_Emeritus
Posts: 7625
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 1:58 am

Re: Breaking Away

Post by _Ceeboo »

Hey again, Stem,

stemelbow wrote:
I don't know what to make of your experience, Ceeboo. I have known many former LDS and it seems to me more are non-atheists than atheists. I'm guessing that my anecdotal is representative of the whole. Perhaps you are thinking of former LDS who post on message boards like this? I don't know.



Stem, please take a seat before reading any further.
(Are you sitting?)
Okay, keep reading.

I think you make a very good point that is worthy of deep consideration.

My experience of "Mormonism" is mostly from message boards (LDS.Net, CAF, MDD, MDB) and perhaps (?) this is a very narrow, slanted, and very poor sample to use when measuring these things as a whole.

Peace,
Ceeboo
_LDSToronto
_Emeritus
Posts: 2515
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 2:11 am

Re: Breaking Away

Post by _LDSToronto »

sock puppet wrote:
LDSToronto wrote:Sock, I can't say I've become an atheist; agnostic is a better label because I really don't know if there is some prime creator or prime actor and if there is, I am not sure of this prime actors nature or influence on my life.

LDST, these questions are asked respectfully:

1-do you know if there is in fact a Santa Claus?

2-do you know if there is in fact an Easter Bunny?

What makes the question of the existence of diety any different? There is no credible evidence of any of the three.


I see what you are driving at, Sock, and I appreciate your query.

Let me expand a bit on what I believe. Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are important characters in certain social traditions. At some point, everyone learns that Father Christmas is a fictional character used to bring a certain 'magical' element to the season, and for the most part, we all acknowledge the mythical nature of this character at some point in our lives.

With the LDS god, all rests on what really happened in Palmyra and Joseph's credibility. Given that Joseph's credibility is disputed by counter-evidences that we don't need to discuss here, it follows that the existence of Joseph's god is also questionable. One can be convinced that no supernatural deity came to Joseph in the grove that spring morning in 1820. And thus, one can conclude that a deity of flesh and bone with a son of flesh and bone is not tenable.

Joseph's modern recounting of God dismissed, a traditional Christian god remains. Given the problems of the biblical narrative (left as an exercise for the reader to discover), and a dearth of evidence that could corroborate the miracles and happenings of the Old and New Testament, it is logical to conclude that the deity of Christianity is a fiction; elaborately crafted over time, but a fiction nonetheless.

With the modern LDS god dismissed, and the traditional Christian god gone (and with it, the god of Abraham and thus the god of Islam and the god of Judaism); I have no faith, hope, or belief in a god that resembles either. I've not studied other non-Abrahamic religions, but I admit that I will not accept, readily, any god that has not made itself personally manifest to me, in person.

All that said, I go back to a question that perplexes me and I'd venture to guess, perplexes a great many people. How did this universe come to be? All theories notwithstanding, I feel that there is room for some model of creation that involves a prime cause or even a prime creator. I'm not talking about intelligent design - I firmly reject that idea. What I'm really talking about here is some force or hand that set things in motion and then perhaps never influenced again. Or perhaps, influences at certain points.

Thus, I don't call myself an atheist because, while I reject the notion of miraculous, parental, interfering, micro-managing deities, I do accept that I do not know everything beyond the scope of this universe and even beyond the scope of my own existence. Even though I make room for a model of creation that may have been influenced by an external, prime actor, I leave very little room for reverence of such an actor.

My views are most likely problematic, and most definitely full of holes and contradictions. But I have no other way of describing them.

Hope that sheds some light.

H.
"Others cannot endure their own littleness unless they can translate it into meaningfulness on the largest possible level."
~ Ernest Becker
"Whether you think of it as heavenly or as earthly, if you love life immortality is no consolation for death."
~ Simone de Beauvoir
_LDSToronto
_Emeritus
Posts: 2515
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 2:11 am

Re: Breaking Away

Post by _LDSToronto »

Dad of a Mormon wrote:
LDSToronto wrote:If one stays wrapped in the warm arms of the church, there is all kinds of corroborating evidence that Joseph saw god. But, as soon as I found out that there were reasons to doubt what Joseph claimed, my world just fell apart. The only god I believed in was, most likely, a character in a work of fiction. Replacing that fictional character with another character with even less evidence just seemed preposterous. And so I'm left where I was before, comfortably doubting, sometimes hoping, but never, ever believing.


If I may be so bold in asking, what caused you to research Joseph outside of the "warm arms of the church"?


My story is long, Dad, and I don't have a lot of time to recount the entire thing here. But I'll give you a run-up from about a year or so ago....

I was a regular poster over on MDD and had always fought the good fight on social issues - treatment of gays, women, blacks, etc., but had always kind of ignored history. Even at MDD, they do a decent job of shielding you from historical problems.

One day I asked what the "Trailer Park" was, and I was directed here. I fully expected a bunch of anti-mormon yahoo's and was shocked to find the level of intellectual power was higher than over there. So I stuck around and made some friends.

A few days or weeks, it's kinda hazy, but a few days or weeks into my membership here, I was exposed to the Book of Abraham problems, and what remained of my NOM-ish testimony shattered into a million pieces. This led me to a bunch of reading about Joseph - I mean, I'd known about the head in a hat stuff, and the treasure-digging, but the stuff I learned by following the tutelage of a number of smart people here just blew my mind.

So, that's kind of how I got here.

H.
"Others cannot endure their own littleness unless they can translate it into meaningfulness on the largest possible level."
~ Ernest Becker
"Whether you think of it as heavenly or as earthly, if you love life immortality is no consolation for death."
~ Simone de Beauvoir
_Ceeboo
_Emeritus
Posts: 7625
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 1:58 am

Re: Breaking Away

Post by _Ceeboo »

LDSToronto wrote:
I see what you are driving at, Sock, and I appreciate your query.

Let me expand a bit on what I believe. Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are important characters in certain social traditions. At some point, everyone learns that Father Christmas is a fictional character used to bring a certain 'magical' element to the season, and for the most part, we all acknowledge the mythical nature of this character at some point in our lives.

With the LDS god, all rests on what really happened in Palmyra and Joseph's credibility. Given that Joseph's credibility is disputed by counter-evidences that we don't need to discuss here, it follows that the existence of Joseph's god is also questionable. One can be convinced that no supernatural deity came to Joseph in the grove that spring morning in 1820. And thus, one can conclude that a deity of flesh and bone with a son of flesh and bone is not tenable.

Joseph's modern recounting of God dismissed, a traditional Christian god remains. Given the problems of the biblical narrative (left as an exercise for the reader to discover), and a dearth of evidence that could corroborate the miracles and happenings of the Old and New Testament, it is logical to conclude that the deity of Christianity is a fiction; elaborately crafted over time, but a fiction nonetheless.

With the modern LDS god dismissed, and the traditional Christian god gone (and with it, the god of Abraham and thus the god of Islam and the god of Judaism); I have no faith, hope, or belief in a god that resembles either. I've not studied other non-Abrahamic religions, but I admit that I will not accept, readily, any god that has not made itself personally manifest to me, in person.

All that said, I go back to a question that perplexes me and I'd venture to guess, perplexes a great many people. How did this universe come to be? All theories notwithstanding, I feel that there is room for some model of creation that involves a prime cause or even a prime creator. I'm not talking about intelligent design - I firmly reject that idea. What I'm really talking about here is some force or hand that set things in motion and then perhaps never influenced again. Or perhaps, influences at certain points.

Thus, I don't call myself an atheist because, while I reject the notion of miraculous, parental, interfering, micro-managing deities, I do accept that I do not know everything beyond the scope of this universe and even beyond the scope of my own existence. Even though I make room for a model of creation that may have been influenced by an external, prime actor, I leave very little room for reverence of such an actor.

My views are most likely problematic, and most definitely full of holes and contradictions. But I have no other way of describing them.

Hope that sheds some light.

H.



Simply put, an absolute and total Gem of a post.

This post is a great example of why I continue to frequent these boards.

Precious and rare? You better believe it!

(Thanks for sharing with me/us, LDST) :)

Peace,
Ceeboo
Post Reply