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

[drumdude]

I think your voice is necessary, and the ex-Mormon movement needs to always remember not to go over the deep end into hysteria and just brood on hatred and pain in every post.

I'm not a big fan of Dehlin anymore, but I have listened to several of his recent podcast episodes. He did an entire series with Rod Meldrum, where he intentionally treated Meldrum with upmost respect and avoided the pitfall of a "gotcha" style argument. He treated him so respectfully, that Kara Burell couldn't handle it and left the show temporarily.

Dehlin has said over and over that he wants to discuss "ideas and not people." He hasn't always been the greatest on that, but the man has tens of thousands of hours of podcasts. He's certainly not shouting into the microphone every day, John Larsen style. And he has been true to his word, really discussing ideas and not people.

I'm not sure where we disagree on tithing, the Mormon church asks its members to pay 10 percent of their income period. I didn't specify net or gross, and neither does the church. That's a pretty well known fact.

I think the ex-Mormon movement has done a lot of good by "giving a crap." The Mormon church would LOVE for all of them to have gone quietly and never told anyone their experience. If someone wants to stay within Mormonism after hearing what the opposite view to belief is, good on them. But they should be informed, and the ex-Mormon movement has done a fantastic job of informing Mormons. And it will continue to do so, despite LDS leaders begging Mormons not to do their own research.

[Kishkumen]

I think your voice is necessary, and the ex-Mormon movement needs to always remember not to go over the deep end into hysteria and just brood on hatred and pain in every post.

People will do what they will do. I try to do better, and I appreciate you engaging with me in a friendly way.

I'm not a big fan of Dehlin anymore, but I have listened to several of his recent podcast episodes. He did an entire series with Rod Meldrum, where he intentionally treated Meldrum with upmost respect and avoided the pitfall of a "gotcha" style argument. He treated him so respectfully, that Kara Burell couldn't handle it and left the show temporarily.

Yeah, John Dehlin tends to be nicer to the fringy Mormons than he is to apologists and the like. I appreciate that he was respectful to Meldrum. That reflects better on him than doing otherwise.

Dehlin has said over and over that he wants to discuss "ideas and not people." He hasn't always been the greatest on that, but the man has tens of thousands of hours of podcasts. He's certainly not shouting into the microphone every day, John Larsen style. And he has been true to his word, really discussing ideas and not people.

Good point. I appreciate his focus on ideas and not people, although I think when it comes to LDS apologists he often did focus on the people, not that any of us are perfect in that regard—or anywhere close. Larsen I long ago grew tired of. I make a point of not giving him any of my time. In any case, my time is limited, and it is easy for me not to give him my attention.

I'm not sure where we disagree on tithing, the Mormon church asks its members to pay 10 percent of their income period. I didn't specify net or gross, and neither does the church. That's a pretty well known fact.

Yeah, true! I am sure not paying it, and I don’t plan to pay it. My view is that something is definitely amiss there. The LDS Church is awash in money, and I don’t buy that God has ordered that his people pay ten percent of their gross income to the LDS Church. If I were to go back to the LDS Church, I would probably pay what I felt comfortable paying as dues and not allow silly guilt trips to budge me from my own judgment. If I really wanted to go to the temple, then I would pay a full tithe to get there—meaning ten percent of my net income.

But I don’t think I could ever be persuaded that what the apostles of the LDS Church think I should give represents God’s decree on the issue.

I think the ex-Mormon movement has done a lot of good by "giving a crap." The Mormon church would LOVE for all of them to have gone quietly and never told anyone their experience. If someone wants to stay within Mormonism after hearing what the opposite view to belief is, good on them. But they should be informed, and the ex-Mormon movement has done a fantastic job of informing Mormons. And it will continue to do so, despite LDS leaders begging Mormons not to do their own research.

I have a couple of thoughts on this. First, the LDS Church is not Mormonism. It doesn’t even want to be considered such. Second, I don’t think anyone has a corner on interpreting Mormonism, be they ex-LDS, LDS, or otherwise. What people do have is an experience of the LDS Church, which I think is a deeply flawed and in some ways failing organization that could benefit from reform but will probably not have it or do so well. Both ex-LDS and LDS people are of course entitled to their feelings and thoughts on LDSism. I will take those thoughts for what they are worth. I have gained a lot from both LDS and ex-LDS thinkers. I have gained a lot from others associated with the Mormon movement. People are going to do what they will do, and I hope the best for them, regardless of what they choose.

[drumdude]

I think your voice is necessary, and the ex-Mormon movement needs to always remember not to go over the deep end into hysteria and just brood on hatred and pain in every post.

People will do what they will do. I try to do better, and I appreciate you engaging with me in a friendly way.

I'm not a big fan of Dehlin anymore, but I have listened to several of his recent podcast episodes. He did an entire series with Rod Meldrum, where he intentionally treated Meldrum with upmost respect and avoided the pitfall of a "gotcha" style argument. He treated him so respectfully, that Kara Burell couldn't handle it and left the show temporarily.

Yeah, John Dehlin tends to be nicer to the fringy Mormons than he is to apologists and the like. I appreciate that he was respectful to Meldrum. That reflects better on him than doing otherwise.

Dehlin has said over and over that he wants to discuss "ideas and not people." He hasn't always been the greatest on that, but the man has tens of thousands of hours of podcasts. He's certainly not shouting into the microphone every day, John Larsen style. And he has been true to his word, really discussing ideas and not people.

Good point. I appreciate his focus on ideas and not people, although I think when it comes to LDS apologists he often did focus on the people, not that any of us are perfect in that regard—or anywhere close. Larsen I long ago grew tired of. I make a point of not giving him any of my time. In any case, my time is limited, and it is easy for me not to give him my attention.

I'm not sure where we disagree on tithing, the Mormon church asks its members to pay 10 percent of their income period. I didn't specify net or gross, and neither does the church. That's a pretty well known fact.

Yeah, true! I am sure not paying it, and I don’t plan to pay it. My view is that something is definitely amiss there. The LDS Church is awash in money, and I don’t buy that God has ordered that his people pay ten percent of their gross income to the LDS Church. If I were to go back to the LDS Church, I would probably pay what I felt comfortable paying as dues and not allow silly guilt trips to budge me from my own judgment. If I really wanted to go to the temple, then I would pay a full tithe to get there—meaning ten percent of my net income.

But I don’t think I could ever be persuaded that what the apostles of the LDS Church think I should give represents God’s decree on the issue.

I think the ex-Mormon movement has done a lot of good by "giving a crap." The Mormon church would LOVE for all of them to have gone quietly and never told anyone their experience. If someone wants to stay within Mormonism after hearing what the opposite view to belief is, good on them. But they should be informed, and the ex-Mormon movement has done a fantastic job of informing Mormons. And it will continue to do so, despite LDS leaders begging Mormons not to do their own research.

I have a couple of thoughts on this. First, the LDS Church is not Mormonism. It doesn’t even want to be considered such. Second, I don’t think anyone has a corner on interpreting Mormonism, be they ex-LDS, LDS, or otherwise. What people do have is an experience of the LDS Church, which I think is a deeply flawed and in some ways failing organization that could benefit from reform but will probably not have it or do so well. Both ex-LDS and LDS people are of course entitled to their feelings and thoughts on LDSism. I will take those thoughts for what they are worth. I have gained a lot from both LDS and ex-LDS thinkers. I have gained a lot from others associated with the Mormon movement. People are going to do what they will do, and I hope the best for them, regardless of what they choose.

Agreed on most points, and I definitely echo the sentiment that no matter what people choose I hope the best for them. Religion works well for a lot of people and deconstructing your religion, while worthwhile IMHO, is not necessary to live a good life.

[KevinSim]

I'm not sure there are any conscientious ones who have thoroughly thought things through.

Your insecurity is showing through with such a glib and arrogant response.

IHAQ, my response shows my insecurity? How does it do that?

[KevinSim]

Other than that, it's a feel-good meaningless catchphrase that Kevin cannot adequately explain.

Fence Sitter, I said "making sure some good things are preserved forever." Why do I need to explain it? Isn't its meaning self-evident?

[KevinSim]

Our normal experience of living in this world is more like a constantly adjusted series of interlocking approximations that require continual updating and some kind of conflict resolution to deal with the internal contradictions that keep revealing themselves as our experience progresses.

Wow, Chap, if I took that attitude I don't know how I would ever conclude I knew anything.

[IHAQ]

It’s the community that’s “true”, not the Church. Your mission showed you that.

IHAQ, how did my mission show me that?

Go back and read what you said about your mission and what it was you really missed.

[IHAQ]

Your insecurity is showing through with such a glib and arrogant response.

IHAQ, my response shows my insecurity? How does it do that?

Because you want to paint all atheists as non-conscientious. If you can’t see the arrogance in that, and how it highlights your own insecurity then I can’t help you.

[Chap]

Our normal experience of living in this world is more like a constantly adjusted series of interlocking approximations that require continual updating and some kind of conflict resolution to deal with the internal contradictions that keep revealing themselves as our experience progresses.

Wow, Chap, if I took that attitude I don't know how I would ever conclude I knew anything.

Forgive me, but that is precisely the point. The ability to realise that you do not fully understand a situation - or perhaps that you do not understand it at all - has been recognised in more than one ancient culture as one of the characteristics of being a wise person.

You will no doubt have heard about the ancient Athenian thinker Socrates (c. 470–399 BC). A story is told of him that when the god Apollo's oracle at Delphi said (to the surprise of many) that Socrates was the wisest of the Greeks, Socrates commented in effect "That must be because I am the only person who realises he does not know anything - while so many other people are sure that they know lots of stuff". A similar saying is found in a book said to be by the legendary Chinese thinker Lao Zi, traditionally taken to have lived around the time of Socrates.

They didn't say that stuff just to be difficult, but because they wanted to warn people against being too ready to think that things are simple when in fact they can be very complicated.

[huckelberry]

Our normal experience of living in this world is more like a constantly adjusted series of interlocking approximations that require continual updating and some kind of conflict resolution to deal with the internal contradictions that keep revealing themselves as our experience progresses.

Wow, Chap, if I took that attitude I don't know how I would ever conclude I knew anything.

I thought Chaps statement was a relatively well put together bit of fundamental awareness about life. It is a bit startling to see it pushed aside.