Faithful TBM to doubter in 6 hours on ex-Mormon Reddit

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

You’re answering questions with questions in order to avoid answering questions. That’s not good-faith behavior. It’s evasive and dishonest.

Doc, why do you think it's dishonest? Is it more dishonest than the implication that I need to answer those questions to have a good faith discussion? You want an answer to your question? Fine. I'm not ready to examine and deconstruct LDS truth claims. I honestly don't see the point in such an analysis, and until someone shows me what the point is, I don't intend to head in that direction.

Well, at least we’ve come full circle:

They don’t have to control a mind that controls itself. You don’t [examine your faith and its organization critically] and you choose tribalism because *reasons*. You’re the perfect Mormon.

Well. Good to see it works for you. Deadass bet no cap fr fr, it slaps.

- Doc

[doubtingthomas]

I am convinced the answer came from God. What I was trying to say was that I don't consider myself an expert on what communication is and isn't a result of the Holy Spirit.

Are prophets and apostles experts on the Holy Spirit? Do you think Brigham Young was very good at recognizing the voice of the spirit?

All that said, what exactly would be the point of believing in a deity that observed but didn't intervene? I see no difference between such a deity and no deity at all.

I wonder the same thing.

[Chap]

Now you come up with the nonsensical suggestion that I might believe that the thing you call "non-determinism" might "cause a planet or a moon to materialize out of nothing". It would clearly be a waste of time for me to continue to reply to you as if we were in a serious discussion.

Chap, why do you think my suggestion was nonsensical, and why do you think it would be a waste of time to continue to reply? Are you unable to explain how the universe is non-deterministic? If not, then please explain. If so, then doesn't that make my point?

If you can't see why it is nonsensical to suggest in the middle of a discussion about whether the universe is deterministic or not that believing in a nondeterministic universe entails accepting the idea that a large object like a planet might simply appear from nowhere, then I'm afraid we are on such different wavelengths that it is probably not worthwhile for us to continue trying to have a serious discussion on these matters.

In any case, I was not advocating a position that the universe was deterministic, or that it was not deterministic. My intervention in this discussion was solely by way of a criticism of your argument that a nondeterministic universe must always have contained a being with free will, whom you identify with the deity of your religion. I think I refuted your argument on that point effectively enough, but I prefer not continue trying to have a rational discussion with someone who makes such strange suggestions about his opponents' supposed beliefs.

[KevinSim]

That said, its critics overemphasize its flaws and downplay its good points.

Agreed, Kishkumen. When it comes to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, everybody exaggerates. People in the Church exaggerate how good it is; people who have left it exaggerate how bad it is. Todd Compton is one of the few authors that seem to strike a balance between the two extremes, to talk about the flaws and good points without any unnecessary exaggeration. Why can't more people do that?

[malkie]

That said, its critics overemphasize its flaws and downplay its good points.

Agreed, Kishkumen. When it comes to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, everybody exaggerates. People in the Church exaggerate how good it is; people who have left it exaggerate how bad it is. Todd Compton is one of the few authors that seem to strike a balance between the two extremes, to talk about the flaws and good points without any unnecessary exaggeration. Why can't more people do that?

The salience of the virtues and failings of the church likely depends heavily on whether you are in or out, just as is does with almost everything else in life.

As someone who is officially 'in' - neither resigned nor excommunicated - but mentally and emotionally 'out', I have no problem recognising the good points, because I have experienced them, and, through family, continue to do so.

But for all practical purposes I have no incentive to praise the virtues of the church. On the other hand, most of the time I feel no need to condemn its failings. But if someone asks me about the church, since the failings helped to bring me out, the negatives are more likely to guide my side of the conversation.

And I'm pretty sure that the mirror reflects quite accurately on how people in and out of the church regard "heretics and apostates" like me: I expect that faithful members would be more likely to emphasise my failings, and perhaps my peer group would be more lenient on me.

[Fence Sitter]

I understand why you say that, but that strikes me as a very one-sided perspective.

That the LDS Church applies a divine law of tithing to do many good things, above all providing millions of its members a spiritual home and community. That it does its best to deal with the challenges posed by critics who attack its founding narrative for the purposes of destroying that spiritual home and community for those who value those things. It is struggling with rapid cultural and civilizational change imperfectly with results that do lead to harm but also prevent many from being completely disoriented by the rapid changes.

The LDS Church is, like any human organization, flawed. That said, its critics overemphasize its flaws and downplay its good points. Everyone should feel at liberty to choose LDS community or choose otherwise. I see no reason to tear it down to those who happily choose it. I don’t trust viewpoints that are negative to the point of dark caricature.

I am a big fan of Mormons as a people and of the culture. I still have my membership though there are times I have considered resigning over the destructive LGBTQ policies current leadership pushes. I truly value my upbringing as a Mormon and have many cherished memories from it, a culture the current church seems to be destroying in its quest for control.

I think the organization is the problem and I think it has long since moved beyond using tithing funds to do good things in its avaricious accumulation of wealth. It is not using tithing to do good; it is using it to control members. The LDS Church could stop collecting tithing completely and still indefinitely provide the framework for the spiritual home and community it does by just relying on the mass of wealth they are currently hoarding. I believe it is protecting its version of the founding narrative not because it fears the destruction of its community, but because leadership fears the loss of divine imprimatur. Their inability to deal with rapid change is a direct result of their quest to keep power in the hands of a few geriatric white males who were not able to deal with rapid change as younger men let alone now. So, I am not tearing down a culture or people that voluntarily choose to follow Mormonism, I am attacking the claims and actions of those who run it. Mormonism can survive without the evils imposed on it by its current leaders and pointing them out is not a quest to destroy Mormonism, it is an effort to draw the attention of its current members to the sins it its leadership.

[doubtingthomas]

When it comes to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, everybody exaggerates.

I'm simply asking questions,

I am convinced the answer came from God. What I was trying to say was that I don't consider myself an expert on what communication is and isn't a result of the Holy Spirit.

Are prophets and apostles experts on the Holy Spirit? Do you think Brigham Young was very good at recognizing the voice of the spirit?

All that said, what exactly would be the point of believing in a deity that observed but didn't intervene? I see no difference between such a deity and no deity at all.

I wonder the same thing.

[Kishkumen]

You could have said the same thing about Theranos. Why is everyone trying to attack a corporation that just wants to help the world improve access to medical testing? Why does it matter that there was some fraud if they were trying their best? Why did the world decide to destroy a company that was employing hundreds of workers and was possibly even on a path towards developing a legitimate product?

That’s an apples to oranges comparison. If there is an LDS product, it is the Church itself. You either like what the Church offers, or you don’t. Members are not venture capitalists investing in a forthcoming product, even if you want to place eternal salvation in that category. I don’t think it works.

They got caught lying. A very significant amount of lying. And so did the Mormon church. Also engaged in a very significant amount of deception. Religions, however, enjoy a much greater level of protection and freedom than corporations. See Scientology, for the extreme example.

Meh. There are big questions regarding the obligation of a religious organization to promote academic-style versions of its history. There is a story of faith, and there is history in all of its many forms. An organization like the LDS Church will tell a story of faith that is designed to increase faith, not undermine its mission by providing demystifying narratives.

I think academic histories are wonderful. I just don’t think the LDS Church, or any other church, is obligated to provide such narratives. That said, I do wish the Church was better about providing access to important records and documents. They are doing better than they did, and that’s definitely a good thing.

I listened to Bill Reel and RFM yesterday on their show validate the opinions of a believing Mormon on their show. I see a lot of that charity coming from ex-Mormons, but it never gets noticed because the emotional response to criticism of Mormonism obscures it.

I am not sure what this has to do with anything. This is a non-sequitur. Everyone should show charity to others. LDS and ex-LDS alike. I approve of being charitable.

If ignorance is the only thing keeping someone within Mormonism, you would blame people like us for educating them and causing them to leave? That is entirely on the church, in my opinion. It’s not my responsibility to lay out the facts in a way that preserves faith, especially when that way does not exist without dishonesty.

The spiritual community is what keeps people in the LDS Church. Not ignorance. I don’t so much blame people for telling the story of Mormonism that makes sense to them as fault them for expecting others to share their view of Mormonism.

Staying within Mormonism is a perfectly valid choice and works well for some people.

On that point we are agreed.

I suppose I could add that sentence to the end of every single criticism I make of the religion. But I don’t think I should have to until Mormonism also tells the other side of their story.

You’re being extremely unrealistic.

[drumdude]

I see no reason to tear it down to those who happily choose it. I don’t trust viewpoints that are negative to the point of dark caricature.

I listened to Bill Reel and RFM yesterday on their show validate the opinions of a believing Mormon on their show. I see a lot of that charity coming from ex-Mormons, but it never gets noticed because the emotional response to criticism of Mormonism obscures it.

This was meant to directly address the criticism that ex-Mormons are "negative to the point of dark caricature." They are simply not, and you can see it if you're not ignoring all of the positive points critics concede about Mormonism.

I suppose I could add that sentence to the end of every single criticism I make of the religion. But I don’t think I should have to until Mormonism also tells the other side of their story.

This seems necessary to me to avoid the caricature in your mind that ex-Mormons are "negative to the point of dark caricature."

The spiritual community is what keeps people in the LDS Church. Not ignorance

Then why do so many Mormons leave after discovering facts about the LDS church that they were previously ignorant of? I'm certainly not claiming all Mormons stay due to ignorance, but you can't ignore the very large number who must given the testimony of recently informed Mormons.

If there is an LDS product, it is the Church itself. You either like what the Church offers, or you don’t.

It's actually worse than Theranos. Because Mormons are taught from birth to believe that if they don't "invest" 10% of their income every year, they will actually be punished for eternity. This isn't people deciding to invest based off a few minutes reading a prospectus. This is a lifetime of indoctrination at work.

[Kishkumen]

This was meant to directly address the criticism that ex-Mormons are "negative to the point of dark caricature." They are simply not, and you can see it if you're not ignoring all of the positive points critics concede about Mormonism.

My impression is that, on the whole, Mormonism Live! is very critical of the LDS Church and Mormonism. It does a better job in many ways than John Dehlin does, but it commits much effort to criticizing what the LDS Church and its leaders do. For that reason, I think it is certainly lopsided. Now, the fine research and thinking of RFM in particular makes it a real feast of a learning experience. There is no doubt that you will think more, learn more, and laugh more with RFM involved than you will with just about any other podcast, but that does not change the fact that its focus is largely negative.

I don't want to pass over the nods to fairness along the way. Certainly they could be less fair. I am not sure that I can expect them to be more fair. The podcast exists for a particular purpose and audience. At the same time, let's be realistic regarding what we expect of the LDS Church. I think there have been some efforts to be less harsh about people who leave the LDS Church, but we can't expect them to be non-partisan on that issue.

Finally, I wasn't referring to Mormonism Live in particular when I wrote "negative to the point of dark caricature." I was stating a rule of thumb that I observe. Too often I hear things from ex-LDS podcasters that simply sound absurd to me. John Dehlin in particular is given to making sweeping generalizations about the LDS Church and Mormonism. I have always valued certain things he does, but it is hard to take him seriously when he is so ham-handed in his approach. Bill Reel is also so slanted that it makes me laugh at times. Not that I do not respect Bill's intelligence and journey, but he is obviously so biased against Mormonism that it is sometimes hard to take his opinion seriously unless you share that bias.

This seems necessary to me to avoid the caricature in your mind that ex-Mormons are "negative to the point of dark caricature."

Your reading of my post is inaccurate.

It's actually worse than Theranos. Because Mormons are taught from birth to believe that if they don't "invest" 10% of their income every year, they will actually be punished for eternity. This isn't people deciding to invest based off a few minutes reading a prospectus. This is a lifetime of indoctrination at work.

Yeah, again, your comparison is disastrously silly. First, let's be realistic and concede that most people who do pay tithing pay on the net, meaning "after taxes." Sure, there are some zealous folks who will go the extra mile by paying on the gross, but they are probably in a very small minority. Second, "punished for eternity" is just silliness. Punished how exactly? By having a somewhat less dreamy afterlife than one would have otherwise had? By having fewer opportunities to go to the temple or holding fewer high callings? I mean, that doesn't necessarily sound like punishment to me.

The truth is that people are liable to imagine they should be punished when they don't live up to the expectations of others in a religious community. Sometimes bishops have to caution people not to be so hard on themselves. Sure, if a person insists on seeing the dark side of everything, or letting zealots define their religious lives for them, there are plenty of opportunities to feel bad and guilty everywhere. Go join a political party and see how bad you should feel for not toeing the party line! Go be a progressive activist and trip over yourself to figure out which pronoun or term for this or that group is in vogue today, lest you be found among the benighted souls who did not read the latest memo. Go be a principled conservative and a "Never Trumper."

I'm really no longer impressed with the argument that I should avoid groups where someone might make me feel bad for not drinking enough Kool Aid every day. The truth of the matter is that humans engage in this nonsense. There is always someone out there who is falling all over themselves to feel like the #1 cultist in any group, and one way they do this is to hold everyone else as "X"INOs. One of the best things about being a heretic Mormon, for me, was realizing that Lou Midgley's opinion of me did not matter to me at all.

And here's the thing: when it comes to Mormonism, nobody's opinion of me matters much to me. I just don't care. I don't care what progressives and conservatives think of me either. But that does not mean that they won't say nasty things about me. Oh, they will. The trick is not to give much of a crap about any of it. Just do you and try not to sweat the disapproval of others. People need community, but they also need enough of a backbone not to get railroaded by the local zealots in any organization.