The Fruits of Apostasy: Politcal Correctness

[_sock puppet]

As for the church making more exmo's and atheists than it does Mormon that is hyperbole. Convert and birth rates are still higher than exits.

Mere human collateral damage in search of new tithe payers.

[_bloggernacleburner]

Hey there, burner. I see you've met Droopy. Glad you could join us. :)

Hey Ms Jack!

Was thinking about getting back in the game and heard about your kerfuckle over here so I thought I'd come play while the kitties are percolating.

I watched Droop for a little while. I think i've got his type pegged.

[_bloggernacleburner]

Hey there, burner. I see you've met Droopy. Glad you could join us. :)

Hey Ms Jack!

Was thinking about getting back in the game and heard about your kerfuckle over here so I thought I'd come play while the kitties are percolating.

I watched Droop for a little while. I think i've got his type pegged.

[_sock puppet]

Droopy, how ironic your OP. You equate apostasy with becoming 'politically correct'. Political correctness connotes peer-pressured thought processes about political and social issues. Of course, inside Mormonism there would be no peer-pressured thought processes about political and social issues, is there?

Your OP also suggests that when one apostatizes, he or she reacts and rejects all of the Mormon trappings, including its conservative political thinking. Of course, that implies that active TBMs are morgbots on political issues, doing what the COB tells them such as supporting Prop 8 in California.

Apostasy is marked by one critically thinking (often for the first time) about religious issues. It would not be mere coincidence that the apostatizing person might for the first time be also critically thinking about the political and social issues. To go from being told how you ought to view yourself, including your sexuality and that of others, view others, view society, etc.--LDS Thought Bubble--to critically thinking about these issues for yourself for the first time, it is a journey, for many like Zeez a downright odyssey, of self-discovery. In that process, many no doubt try new ideas on to see how they fit. For some, like Kevin Graham for instance, political thought contrary to the Mormon mainstream fits himself nicely.

For me, I shucked off most of the political crust when I got rid of the Mormon shell. I view things entirely differently. For me, the first question is whether it is worth my time to think about certain social and political issues, or would my time be better spent attending to other matters. You see, I am no longer deluded into thinking I am a god in embryo and will some day create worlds. That is, I won't be designing any social or political constructs on any worlds, because I know that I won't be creating worlds. So on most issues, I don't care.

If I post on a political or non-Mormon social issue, it is usually to provoke thought rather than my having any views on the topic that are implicitly behind that question. Kevin might think, for instance, that I am pro corporation, individualism, and Rand objectivism. Actually, I think Kevin realizes I am not necessarily so or he would take me to task for my comments in these regards.

To paint all, or even most, apostates as disciples of political correctness is a serious misperception. I think that many of the more vocal posters are liberal believers, and that skews your perceptions. I think that your holding fast to LDS (think, pre-1960s) political notions makes you see reasonable discussion of political and social issues as a 'political correctness' afront to your antiquated notions.

This OP is certainly one where you've jumped the proverbial shark. You might want to stick to defending your political thoughts than trying to paint with broad brushstrokes what those thoughts of others might be.

[_Droopy]

What about active members that have liberal political views? I know they are the minority but they do exist. I know a number and regardless of what you and BC think they are devoted Latter-day saints.

I would say these are people who are have compartmentalized their political views so as to avoid cognitive dissonance and psychological inner conflict. This involves any number of intellectual rationalizations/psychological defenses etc. This says nothing about their "devout" status, at least as far a church activity goes, but only that syncretistic tendencies are in play, very similar, in essence, to those that eventually corrupted the church after the 1st century due to the importation of Hellenistic philosophy.

Obama can't take a lot of credit for low taxes.

Come on Jason, taxes are at all time highs at all levels. I exploded Kevin's propaganda ploy, taken from a Soros spin tank, on the other thread where attempted to foist it. The claims of the Center for American Progress are patently and intuitively wrong, as five minutes of research on the Web will show you. The study upon which the claim is based is fatally crippled by deeply flawed methodology in its construction that renders large swaths of federal taxation invisible. Further, it does not take into account state and local taxation, and the vast underbelly of federal and state tax that falls outside income, corporate, dividend, and payroll taxes. The entire claim is a wash. Further, Obama has not lowered taxes, nor has he ever attempted to do so.

Before passage of HR 4853, taxes were set for three great waves of massive tax expansion. The first was the expansion of marginal rates along the following lines:

- The Bush tax cuts would have expired, representing one of the largest effective tax increases in history.
- The 10% bracket would rise to 15%
- The 25% bracket would rise to 28%
- The 28% bracket would rise to 31%
- The 33% bracket would rise to 36%
- The 35% bracket would rise to 39.6%
- Capital gains taxes would rise from 15 percent to 20 percent.
- Dividends tax rates rise from from 15 percent to 20 percent;

The marriage penalty returns, along with the death tax.

Following this, we are set for two massive waves of taxation: those involving the Obamacare, assuming it survives court challenge, and substantial tax increases involving:

A plethora of tax increases on small business

The substantial cutting of small business expensing by 50%

The lack of indexing of the AMT (the notorious Alternative Minimum Tax).

Charitable contributions from IRAs will be ended.

And we can go on and on and on.

HR 4853 was a compromise package with the Democrats and the White house that retained the Bush tax rates and preserved present marginal rates. However, as with so much that comes out of Congress at present, these reforms are merely temporary fixes. The higher Obama rates and increases will appear again in 2013 without further legislation.

As for the church making more exmo's and atheists than it does Mormon i think that is hyperbole. Convert and birth rates are still higher than exits.

Who said it "makes them?" I'm asking why apostasy from it seems to have a bias in that direction, if another religion is not chosen in lieu of church membership and the apostate heads into secularism instead.

[_Droopy]

quote="honorentheos"]My thought process regarding politics and religion did not follow the outline you suggest, Droopy.

I was raised in a deeply religious Mormon household where big (R) Republicans were the good guys and everything else was a perversion of whatever godly forces were sustaining our great nation. I joined the military, as a reservist, while still a senior in high school. When the recruiter sat down with me and started his salesman job, I stopped him and said, "I know I am joining a branch of the military. You don't have to convince me why I should "Go Army!" over not joining. All you have to do is show me how I can still serve a mission and go to college if I join." He pointed out that as a reservist I was in a prime position to do both and deal was done. I began my training weeks after graduation. I left on a mission about a year later.

My mission service was in Switzerland, where I experienced another nation's culture for the first time. And I found out that there were many things I had never thought about that we could learn from this culture. I saw first hand what a first world country looks like when it has been around for a very long time and it can not rely on seemingly unending open, undeveloped land and vast amounts of natural resources to fuel it's wealth. I lived in a culture there that truly had to open it's arms to poor and oppressed of other nations and saw the friction this caused as well as why; but also how they kept the lid on the problems. I sat in living rooms of very small apartments with women who had just escaped the atrocities in the Balkans who shared stories of seeing family killed, being stopped by Christians on their way out of the country and only surviving because they could recite the Lord's Prayer...this is a small taste of the eye opening experience that my mission turned out to be.

This experience changed my thinking on many key political positions, but not my affiliation. Whatever I may have thought about application, I was still confident I was a (R)epublican.

This is all very interesting, but I'm not sure how relevant it is to the gist of the OP. If you will notice, as is usual for me, nowhere do I mention political party affiliation in my OP or the body of the text. The reason is that I am not primarily concerned with party, but with worldview and, its concomitant derivative, political ideology. Its true that political philosophy and ideology tend to congregate in political parties. Socialist, communist, green, and anarchist parties leave little room for doubt as to ideology. American politics are different in that both major parties present as "big tents," to a greater or lesser degree.

The Democratic party, for example, has long been more partial to state interventionism, larger, more concentrated government, and state paternalism. So, however, have the Republicans, to a greater or lesser extent. The big division came after the Nixon years and the ascendancy of the McGovern coalition into power in the mid-seventies. This brought the left wing of that party into dominance, which dominance has expanded until the Democratic party, which was once a loyal opposition -but still fundamentally pro-American party who's members held fundamentally similar views to their Republican counterparts, only with greater emphasis or deemphasis on how those values should be manifest as policy, became, in essence, an indigenous American Fabian socialist party, and ideologically hostile to most of the core principles of the Founding.

In the meantime, the Republican party establishment continued on its course of "blue blood" managerial elitism, producing peripheral conservatives and/or Presidential candidates and legislators (John McCain etc.) actually ideologically hostile to the conservative intellectual movement, and particularly its grassroots.

This has created a problem, because while the Democratic party is wholly a leftist, progressive political organization, the Republican party is tolerant of conservatives within its ranks, and provides a room for them, but not really a home.

At the end of this exercises, our class was over 50% democrats and more heavily liberal-moderate than moderate-to-conservative. I was one of those who had assumed I was a republican, and moderately conservative who turned out to being a moderate-liberal when the labels had been removed.

The term "moderate" means nothing to me, so perhaps you could flesh that out somewhat.

Over the course of that class, the take-home message I found was that the labels messed up American politics. Being educated on the issues was more important than following a label. I changed my voter registration to independent and have since made it a point to try and stay up to date on issues.

Once one takes a position on any issue, and holds a philosophical position, one is no longer a "moderate;" one has moved, at that point, onto one side or another of an intellectual demarcation line. In most cases, unless one's views are utterly nebulous, noncommittal, or unformed, both sides of that line will have a broad label, or intellectual classification attached to it based on a long history of development and coherent belief, even given different schools of thought or peripheral differences between them within the same general worldview framework.

At the time I was believing LDS. I married, served in a student-ward bishopric, and eventually was activated as an Army reservist multiple times following 9/11. The change of mind that led to my leaving the LDS faith happened years after my political affiliation change.

Well, that's fine, as I'm only talking about a consistent bias here, especially among those with advanced education and degrees, not a 100% movement.

Droopy, I think you are behind the times. I think more college educated Mormon youth are leaving the closed-minded political views you hold than you realize...But I do think most LDS youth are raised to believe in conservatism in the same way they are raised to be LDS. It isn't an informed decision on their part.

Upon what basis?

And when you realize the LDS faith, under Howard W. Hunter and subsequently by Hinckley, has moved further away from being focused on heritage to one focused on Christ you can see how certain political views begin to seem illogical to believing youth once they begin to grapple with the issues as adults in order to form their own opinions.

I'm sorry, but I don't see a different emphasis under different church Presidents as being indicative of an underlying shift in LDS culture in other areas, such as politics, that, by definition, are going to reflect church teachings (unless they don't which then becomes a question of tension between them). It's simply an emphasis or reemphasis on certain core themes relevant to the times. I'm not aware of any less focus on Christ in decades past than at present. Indeed, this has always been the core focus of the Church, all other foci being appendages to it.

In short, I think the processes that lead many leaving the church (i.e. - becoming informed on matters with which they were formerly unfamiliar) also leads Mormon youth and adults to change their political affiliation.

In other words, you simply beg a very large question here by assuming that the church isn't true, and that by becoming "informed," this state of affairs becomes clear and other beliefs, which apparently do contain truth value, replace the older, false LDS trugh claims. But this doesn't get us very far, does it, in understanding what it is, with more exactitude, that some people find wrong with the Church and right with secularist leftism?

And, by the way, thanks for the serious and civil response.

[_Droopy]

Do you have any data? Or are you basing this upon your PhD in forum trolling?

What data would you like? Its based on personal experience and observation of the internet ex-Mormon world for over a decade, in which I see a decided shift, both to the secular world and to its the political and cultural Left, and away from EV Protestantism, among a substantial number of apostate LDS among a certain class - intellectuals with advanced degrees or equivalent study as auto-didacts, and those who "coattail" with them and look to them for validation.

Hell, even your own post conspires to prove your final innuendo very very stupid. You cite the example of Mormon -> Evangelical earlier in Mormon history then suggest that apostasy biases one inherently towards the Left/Secularist (IE Korihor/Sons of Perdition/Evil, Unrepentant Bastard party)?

Try reading the OP again, and then attempt an intelligent response, even if contrary. The strong correlation between apostasy and conversion to Protestant fundamentalism appears to be fading, and has fades over the last couple of decades or so.

On a more serious vein, there is a general trend in Western democracies, mostly Europe and Canada, but increasingly so in the United States towards secularism. That assertion has got data supporting it.

Yes, and that supports my basic thesis. Thanks.

So, perhaps your Mormon opponents are not so special in their leftist-lovin satanism.

I think, as part of a turning over of a new leaf here, I'll avoid you in future, as you clearly have no intention of engaging in serious discourse.

[_EAllusion]

A lot of the reason people hold social conservative views is due to the influence of their religious beliefs and surrounding culture. If they abandon that religion in favor of a more liberal one or none at all, it makes them far more likely to also become less socially conservative. This biases people who convert away from conservative religions towards becoming either more liberal or libertarian, as that range of the political spectrum is more socially liberal.

Duh.

[_Droopy]

Droopy, how ironic your OP. You equate apostasy with becoming 'politically correct'. Political correctness connotes peer-pressured thought processes about political and social issues. Of course, inside Mormonism there would be no peer-pressured thought processes about political and social issues, is there?

There is, of course, peer pressure, to a greater or lesser extent, within the Church, as is true within all such organizations, religious or secular, to conform to accepted beliefs. However, this aspect of political correctness is, without doubt, its most minor feature, and provides no substantive idea of just what political correctness is, why it exists, or how if functions.

Your OP also suggests that when one apostatizes, he or she reacts and rejects all of the Mormon trappings, including its conservative political thinking. Of course, that implies that active TBMs are morgbots on political issues, doing what the COB tells them such as supporting Prop 8 in California.

This is a non-sequiter as well as an immediate foray into emotive, prejudicial language. Once you get out of Grahamville and into the real world of substantive discussion, sock, let me know.

Apostasy is marked by one critically thinking (often for the first time) about religious issues.

Is it? How do you know this? Perhaps this is true in your case, and perhaps this is nothing more than a subjective rationalization on your part. Hard to tell. The entire idea, however, is easily refuted by pointing to the large number of highly intelligent people, including distinguished degreed academics, who have looked at the same problems of church history and doctrine, and come to very different conclusions than you and other ex-Mormons who fancy themselves "critical thinkers.'

It would not be mere coincidence that the apostatizing person might for the first time be also critically thinking about the political and social issues.

What makes you think that most Mormons don't think critically to any greater extent than most non-members?

To go from being told how you ought to view yourself, including your sexuality and that of others, view others, view society, etc.--LDS Thought Bubble--to critically thinking about these issues for yourself for the first time, it is a journey, for many like Zeez a downright odyssey, of self-discovery.

Nothing has changed then. All cultural institutions, from the family, school, media, news media, peer group, church and fraternal organizations, tell us (attempt to persuade us) how we should view ourselves and our world. The church is only one of these, and one influence among many. All of us make the ultimate decisions of whether to accept or reject those teachings on our own. You have presented a triviality here, sock, as if it were a grand psychological or social revelation.

In that process, many no doubt try new ideas on to see how they fit. For some, like Kevin Graham for instance, political thought contrary to the Mormon mainstream fits himself nicely.

Well, and that begs the question.

For me, I shucked off most of the political crust when I got rid of the Mormon shell. I view things entirely differently. For me, the first question is whether it is worth my time to think about certain social and political issues, or would my time be better spent attending to other matters.

So politics doesn't matter to you?

You see, I am no longer deluded into thinking I am a god in embryo and will some day create worlds.

How do you know your not a god in embryo?

If I post on a political or non-Mormon social issue, it is usually to provoke thought rather than my having any views on the topic that are implicitly behind that question.

So you have no philosophical core then? This would indicate being a bit like philosophical driftwood, would it not, provoking thought, here and there, but for no particular reason and with no particular philosophical center.

To paint all, or even most, apostates as disciples of political correctness is a serious misperception.

Which I didn't do, but only many, and perhaps most in the internet ex-Mormon intellectual milieu, with which I have a great deal of experience, observation, and engagement. I've also specified active ex-Mormon critics, not those who leave the church and just go on with there lives and ignore the Church.

I think that many of the more vocal posters are liberal believers, and that skews your perceptions. I think that your holding fast to LDS (think, pre-1960s) political notions makes you see reasonable discussion of political and social issues as a 'political correctness' afront to your antiquated notions.

I know exactly what political correctness is, and the purpose for which it exists, in its various forms. Political correctness is never reasoned, intellectually substantive discussion (See Wang's thread on Johnny Lingo, for a textbook example of the form).

[_sock puppet]

Droopy, how ironic your OP. You equate apostasy with becoming 'politically correct'. Political correctness connotes peer-pressured thought processes about political and social issues. Of course, inside Mormonism there would be no peer-pressured thought processes about political and social issues, is there?

There is, of course, peer pressure, to a greater or lesser extent, within the Church, as is true within all such organizations, religious or secular, to conform to accepted beliefs. However, this aspect of political correctness is, without doubt, its most minor feature, and provides no substantive idea of just what political correctness is, why it exists, or how if functions.

If there was not such a predominance among active Mormons of conservative, Republican thinking, I might agree that it was a minor feature in the LDS Church. But that is not the case.

Your OP also suggests that when one apostatizes, he or she reacts and rejects all of the Mormon trappings, including its conservative political thinking. Of course, that implies that active TBMs are morgbots on political issues, doing what the COB tells them such as supporting Prop 8 in California.

This is a non-sequiter as well as an immediate foray into emotive, prejudicial language. Once you get out of Grahamville and into the real world of substantive discussion, sock, let me know.

It was you, in your OP, that suggested that when people free themselves of the LDS Church that they start thinking differently on politics as well as religion. So it was your premise that implicates the lock-step political thinking among active TBMs.

Apostasy is marked by one critically thinking (often for the first time) about religious issues.

Is it? How do you know this? Perhaps this is true in your case, and perhaps this is nothing more than a subjective rationalization on your part. Hard to tell. The entire idea, however, is easily refuted by pointing to the large number of highly intelligent people, including distinguished degreed academics, who have looked at the same problems of church history and doctrine, and come to very different conclusions than you and other ex-Mormons who fancy themselves "critical thinkers.'

Four years of high school Mormon seminary, 6 years at BYU-Provo, 2 years on a Mormon mission. As my mind was maturing and becoming ever more inquisitive, in these settings when the topic was LDS Church then independent thinking was discouraged. I not only felt it personally in those venues, but I witnessed it time and time again. I've been deeply entrenched inside as well as now having the perspective of distance from Mormonism. On issues pertaining to religion and the church, the LDS experience is anti-critical thinking, particularly as contrasted with the encouragement of critical thinking on the topic of religion (and academic topics).

It would not be mere coincidence that the apostatizing person might for the first time be also critically thinking about the political and social issues.

What makes you think that most Mormons don't think critically to any greater extent than most non-members?

Been there, done that, was suppressed when I would attempt to voice a view that wasn't harmonizing with the correlated company line. Dr Shades pointed out the difference between Chapel Mormons and Internet Mormons. For every 1 internet Mormon, how many Chapel Mormons are there? I left the Mormon Church before the internet came along, but there were about half a dozen per ward that were buying books like that of Fawn Brodie and reading them. The rest, it was all out of the manual and they did not make a comment about the scriptures unless it was in line with what the manual told them the scriptures meant.

To go from being told how you ought to view yourself, including your sexuality and that of others, view others, view society, etc.--LDS Thought Bubble--to critically thinking about these issues for yourself for the first time, it is a journey, for many like Zeez a downright odyssey, of self-discovery.

Nothing has changed then. All cultural institutions, from the family, school, media, news media, peer group, church and fraternal organizations, tell us (attempt to persuade us) how we should view ourselves and our world. The church is only one of these, and one influence among many. All of us make the ultimate decisions of whether to accept or reject those teachings on our own. You have presented a triviality here, sock, as if it were a grand psychological or social revelation.

All cultural institutions do have some influence on our thinking, but after leaving Mormonism and then looking back (in the rearview mirror) it has become obvious that the smothering influence of LDS when you are active TBM is many fold the combined influence of all the other institutions. Shuck off the LDS influence, and you've shucked off 75 to 80% of the cultural influence from institutions.

In that process, many no doubt try new ideas on to see how they fit. For some, like Kevin Graham for instance, political thought contrary to the Mormon mainstream fits himself nicely.

Well, and that begs the question.

Noting that more liberal thinking fits Kevin's thinking is not begging the question. It is noting an obvious example of how LDS influence was distorting an individual from finding out what his own personal political beliefs are.

For me, I shucked off most of the political crust when I got rid of the Mormon shell. I view things entirely differently. For me, the first question is whether it is worth my time to think about certain social and political issues, or would my time be better spent attending to other matters.

So politics doesn't matter to you?

No. They do not. I'm apolitical. If this were PoliticalDiscussions.com, I'd go into the reasons, probably on many threads. (But I'd likely not participate in such a bulletin board because I am, well, apolitical. It's not even worth the time and effort to me to discuss my apolitical position.) But this is MormonDiscussions.com, and I do not think it the correct forum for discussing politics, except to the extent it is intertwined with Mormonism.

You see, I am no longer deluded into thinking I am a god in embryo and will some day create worlds.

How do you know your not a god in embryo?

Because the idea is patently absurd. Even GBH tried to deep six the notion, claiming not to understand it and that the LDS Church didn't teach that. Since TSM has not revived that notion, why do you cling to it as a TBM?

If I post on a political or non-Mormon social issue, it is usually to provoke thought rather than my having any views on the topic that are implicitly behind that question.

So you have no philosophical core then? This would indicate being a bit like philosophical driftwood, would it not, provoking thought, here and there, but for no particular reason and with no particular philosophical center.

I have many disparate thoughts about many different issues. My mind attempts to make sense of these disparate thoughts, but the more information I learn, the more I realize that the mind's attempt to make all information harmonize keeps one from really learning the different information. You might say I take pains to create cognitive dissonance for myself. I find this yields greater light and knowledge than if I allow my mind to try to pigeonhole all new information within the confines a few simplistic notions. So no, I do not have what you call a 'philosophical core'.

To paint all, or even most, apostates as disciples of political correctness is a serious misperception.

Which I didn't do, but only many, and perhaps most in the internet ex-Mormon intellectual milieu, with which I have a great deal of experience, observation, and engagement. I've also specified active ex-Mormon critics, not those who leave the church and just go on with there lives and ignore the Church.

Really? So now you're not standing behind this passage from your OP (emphases added):

the bulk of active, anti-Mormon criticism seems to have gelled among a group of active ex-Mormon critics, both in the literary world but, most especially, on the Internet, who have moved strongly and consistently to the Left as both an element in their original dissidence from the Church as well as to a new body of doctrine/philosophy/worldview to replace and compensate for the loss of a gospel worldview.

Few, very few, seem to have moved away from the Church into conservatism or a more moderate libertarianism, that values individualism, free market economics etc., but also respects religion and its value to a free and civil social order. The tendency seems to be to the Left, and farther and farther to the Left as time and intellectual distance from the church increases. The tendency appears to be:

1. Total, or nearly so. From membership in the Church and acceptance of gospel teachings, one moves into secular leftism in the form of the acquisition of the entirely new and contrary worldview. There are few piecemeal, cafeteria-like movements once the choice to break with the church has been made.

2. The movement away from the church into the secular Left is rarely "moderate" in the sense of moving from church views on any number of issues and questions to more modestly "liberal" ideas that appear as modifications of church views, but with secularistic overtones or expansions. The movement is toward a stauncher, more intensive ideological stance which, as with most leftist ideological commitments, becomes ever more extreme over time.

3. The movement is not limited to just a few issues or concerns, but encompasses the entire ideological spectrum, including economics, the proper role and scope of the state, social and cultural issues, education, and national security. It is, in essence, an entire reorientation of worldview.

And then there is your thread title too.

I think that many of the more vocal posters are liberal believers, and that skews your perceptions. I think that your holding fast to LDS (think, pre-1960s) political notions makes you see reasonable discussion of political and social issues as a 'political correctness' afront to your antiquated notions.

I know exactly what political correctness is, and the purpose for which it exists, in its various forms. Political correctness is never reasoned, intellectually substantive discussion (See Wang's thread on Johnny Lingo, for a textbook example of the form).

Then you should like and feel quite at home with political correctness. It does for political thinking what Mormonism does for religious thinking: it stomps the individuality out of it.