Breaking Away

[_honorentheos]

Hello again, Ceeboo,

My friend, you fatigue too easily.

It is apparent to me that our problem lies in the question of what constitutes opinion. As if we were discussing anything but here or anywhere else on this board. Interesting.

A while back, a scientist I was listening to said something that may be worth thinking over. It was, in effect, that science is not in the business of discovering truth and to think it is reveals a flaw in one's understanding. Instead, he suggested, the business of science is to peel back, layer by layer, the error and misapprehensions we have regarding how the universe works. There's a difference in there.

To be frank, anything you could share that wasn't your opinion would probably not be worth discussing at all. So I hope you think about why we differ on the role Joseph Smith plays and the results a bit more, and reconsider the value of discussing our opinions, especially when they differ. I find it objectionable to "agree to disagree". On the otherhand, I think it's the height of civility to agreeably disagree. It makes life interesting and we learn more that way.

Thanks.

[_stemelbow]

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 didn't start the insanity. Indeed, SP, said as his premise, "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." I truly think it an absurdity. You can call it insanity if you like. But there's not need to attribute it to me. If he meant percentages then he has a very terrible way of expressing himself.

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.

Indeed.the more I think about it the more I realize Ceeboo's anecdotal is in no way representative of the whole. No offense to him. He just has, what appears to be, a very limited view.

[_stemelbow]

It wasn't my observation about the express from Mo to Atheist.

But you adopted it, SP. Are you saying now that your claims in the OP, as poorly thought out as they were, were not really yours? That you really don't think there are more people who disaffect from Mormonism to atheism than any other religion in a faster time? I mean you haven't really set up any parameters. You're really just spouting off generalities and then drawing hasty conclusions.

There are a number of factors.

Let's consider quickly. Which religion would be less tolerant, overall, than the LDS religion towards those who disaffect? I can think of perhaps one. Islam. According to your logic, there would have to be far more atheists, who venture to atheism at a faster rate, who were muslim than there are atheists who are LDS. Suddenly by using yoru own logic your own premise becomes nothing but an absurdity. And considering the failure you have on your hands in terms of how many atheists were once of other faiths that are not LDS, your absurdity becomes even worse.

It was Ceeboo's, and you know what, he's a never Mo. So the observation is not tainted with TBM or ex-mo critic brushing.

I'm afraid in Ceeboo has admitted his view is tainted by viewing only a very small specialize portion of the group in which we are discussing.

[_harmony]

Eventually, we're back to a big, cosmic bang in THE beginning, or the underpinnings of it--a per chance creation.

In order to follow the bang theory, one must reduce insight, integrity, honesty, peace, emotion to chemical reaction.

I find I just can't do that.

The most important question, I think, is... who lit the spark?

[_sock puppet]

Eventually, we're back to a big, cosmic bang in THE beginning, or the underpinnings of it--a per chance creation.

In order to follow the bang theory, one must reduce insight, integrity, honesty, peace, emotion to chemical reaction.

I find I just can't do that.

The most important question, I think, is... who lit the spark?

Who created the spark lighter?

[_Buffalo]

Eventually, we're back to a big, cosmic bang in THE beginning, or the underpinnings of it--a per chance creation.

In order to follow the bang theory, one must reduce insight, integrity, honesty, peace, emotion to chemical reaction.

I find I just can't do that.

The most important question, I think, is... who lit the spark?

You've been trained to think like that - to view the spirit as somehow "higher" than mere flesh. Newsflash - we're all 100% physical beings. When you look at life from that perspective, suddenly "mere" chemical reactions are a lot more meaningful. The false model of the "spirit self" corrupts or view of reality and makes us cheapen the idea of life as it really is. We're physical creatures. There's nothing wrong with that. Physical/chemical processes are how we work!

[_Ceeboo]

Hello again, Ceeboo,

Hello, honor,

My friend, you fatigue too easily.

At last, we have found something to agree upon. (Progress?)

It is apparent to me that our problem lies in the question of what constitutes opinion.

Possible?

As if we were discussing anything but here or anywhere else on this board. Interesting.

In addition to opinions, I would suggest that this board is littered with personal beliefs, world-views, perspectives, experiences, bias, and a shopping cart full of good and healthy banter,

A while back, a scientist I was listening to said something that may be worth thinking over. It was, in effect, that science is not in the business of discovering truth and to think it is reveals a flaw in one's understanding. Instead, he suggested, the business of science is to peel back, layer by layer, the error and misapprehensions we have regarding how the universe works. There's a difference in there.

Although I have a guess, I am not sure what this has to do with what we have been trying to discuss.

To be frank, anything you could share that wasn't your opinion would probably not be worth discussing at all.

That strikes me as purely sad, to return the frankness.

for what it's worth, I have found that there is gigantic amount of information, fascinating history, literature, life experiences shared, compassion shown, thought provoking ideas, and a laundry list of other human successes and failures that are, without question, extremely worthy of discussion. To say the least.

So I hope you think about why we differ on the role Joseph Smith plays and the results a bit more,

I will.

I find it objectionable to "agree to disagree".

OK.

On the otherhand, I think it's the height of civility to agreeably disagree. It makes life interesting and we learn more that way.

Very well, I agreeably disagree with you. :)

Thanks.

You are welcome.

Thank you

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Rambo]

The most important question, I think, is... who lit the spark?

Who created the spark lighter?

It was me!!!

[_Ceeboo]

No offense to him. He just has, what appears to be, a very limited view.

:)

[_Ceeboo]

Hi Stem,

I'm afraid in Ceeboo has admitted his view is tainted by viewing only a very small specialize portion of the group in which we are discussing.

I stated that you made a very good point, worthy of deep consideration (and I meant that)

I also stated that you may be right.

I was/am willing to consider the fact that my experiences are largely based upon these message boards over the last several years and I am also willing to consider that it is entirely possible that these boards do not reflect (with accuracy) the entire base of Mormons in the world.

Just wanted to clarify.

Peace,
Ceeboo