Posted by: Bahman ®
10/17/2002, 06:06:11
Author Profile Mail author
|
. . . whether it is about not believing in Mormonism or in spirituality (God, afterlife, etc.)?
|
Posted by: Kevin ®
10/17/2002, 13:10:09
Author Profile Mail author
|
It's about not believing in the specific claims of the LDS Church (ie. historicity of the Book of Mormon, the Church being the restoration of Christ's church, etc.).He doesn't really address spirituality per se, except to say that what Latter-day Saints interpret as promptings from the Holy Ghost are identical to the spiritual feelings of other religions throughout the world.
|
Posted by: RC ®
10/19/2002, 05:47:47
Author Profile Mail author
|
Aside from the occasional spelling mistakes (I'm no copy editor, but it does make things a bit awkward to read at times), I found the essay(s) to be fairly representative of a lot of 'leaving the church' experiences. In many ways it even mirrored my own transition out of the church. Just a few comments though... The essay is succinct enough to illustrate the basic arguments/disagreements, but by no means detailed enough to extrapolate all of the points made in the referenced material. I eventually lost interest in the essay because it was stuff that I had read in the primary sources (for the most part). So, I think it would be a very interesting read for someone that is considering leaving the LDS Church. However, that's a tricky issue. I think - probably because this is the process I went through - a lot of 'thinking' Mormons are quick to dismiss the opinions of anyone that has left the Church. As a result, they would likely dismiss his essay as anti-Mormon and not really read it; despite the evidence he points to in the essay. And those that have already left the Church (for intellectual reasons and not transgressional ones) have likely read many of the sources. I guess what I'm saying is, though it is a well thought out essay, it isn't really targeted at anyone that it is going to influence. I actually think there is something of a cognitive shift that has to take place for Mormons to appreciate the content of 'anti-Mormon' writing and not reject it outright. However, I think the period of this shift is short and the essay would have to be read during a very brief period of time to be influential. When I get going... Anyway, I like the essay but I find it doubtful that it will effectively influence many people. Perhaps that isn't his point in writing it. Perhaps he is just trying to get it out so he has everything straight. If that's his intent, then he succeeded in my opinion.
|
Posted by: Cal ®
10/19/2002, 12:28:21
Author Profile Mail author
|
I guess what I'm saying is, though it is a well thought out essay, it isn't really targeted at anyone that it is going to influence. I actually think there is something of a cognitive shift that has to take place for Mormons to appreciate the content of 'anti-Mormon' writing and not reject it outright. However, I think the period of this shift is short and the essay would have to be read during a very brief period of time to be influential. For one thing, the target of the essay probably includes those who've left the church and are trying to make sense of that decision. They can be influenced by essays like this, don't you think? The church makes outlandish claims. How can one, having left the church, make sense of them while trying to remain balanced and yet aware of all the evidence and so forth? At any rate, while the decision to leave the church once and for all can happen suddenly, there are usually lingering issues of the kind that White's essay addresses well, whatever its weaknesses. Not to mention that I wish I'd read something like White's essay when I was a liberal Mormon.
|
Posted by: RC ®
10/20/2002, 11:55:44
Author Profile Mail author
|
Just an opinion. Take it for what it's worth. And, if you look at the author's post just below, he seems to see my point. I'm not saying the essay isn't valuable. I think it is. It was an opportunity for him to get his beliefs out and an attempt to explain his perspective to his family. In that light, I think it is very valuable.My point was that the essay would have to reach an individual while in a very specific mental state for it to influence them (toward leaving the church) or they will simply dismiss it as anti-Mormon. Maybe you disagree with that. If so, please explain.
|
Posted by: Kevin ®
10/20/2002, 13:00:19
Author Profile Mail author
|
I'll have to agree with you that this essay would probably be effective only on those in "transition". However, speaking as one who has never considered himself a "liberal", the article would be very valuable to such a person in this transition period of questioning.This, of course, raises an interesting question: What does one write to get the attention of the "faithful"? Is there anything anyone can say that would convince a faithful, fully-believing member? I don't have any answers. Just asking the question. If Mike's essay would be considered "anti-" by TBM's (and I have no doubt that it would, despite it's pleasant tone), what could be written that would shed light on these issues for a TBM? Who would have to write it? An apostle? The prophet himself? I'd be interested in everyone's opinions! :)
|
Posted by: nofaith ®
10/20/2002, 15:47:18
Author Profile Mail author
|
I've written something similar to Mike's essay, which I started long before I left the Church, and which ultimately made me decide to leave the Church (at first I was writing about dissonance, but eventually I was writing about why I was leaving). It's over 200 pages long (including quotes), and so far only two TBM's have read it. One has actually been exed, but not for belief issues, and he is trying to get back in the Church, because he believes it is true, still.So, to answer your question, how do you get them to read it? To be honest, I have no idea. The first thing I did was tell my family I was leaving. That got their attention, and almost all of them decided they wouldn't even talk to me about it. Of the two who did, the only one who read it (all the way through) was exed. The other basically challenged me to a "discussion" where he could try to understand my position--basically he wanted to use arguments to see if he could defeat my reasoning. I responded by giving him my paper, which I told him to read prior to the discussion. He didn't, and we had the discussion anyway. But eventually he read it (or started). He read it for a while, and finally told me he had to stop reading it, because he could "feel the light being sucked from [his] mind." He concluded that the strength of my arguments was due to the power the devil was giving me. The other person (who was exed) has not told me their conclusions yet. But, they are bothered by what I've brought up. So, basically the only way I've been able to get them to read it is because they were so confident in their position they wanted to argue about it. The person who did so eventually reversed their confident position, however, and is now afraid of such material (like almost all Mormons who have seen it). The exed person only read it (I think) because they considered that perhaps they should carefully investigate the Church before bothering to get readmitted. You also could probably get any FARMS type people to read it, because they don't really seem to care how much sense it makes--as long as there is still a possibility of truth, they cling to that, because the spiritual experience convinces them. As long as it could be true, they are still justified in trusting their feelings. But those people really have no chance anyway, so it is pointless for them to read it. Even I, as a TBM, wouldn't really read the stuff (I looked a 1 or 2 things), and I was very inquisitive. It was the errors I found myself that made me start seriously doubting. Then I uncovered all the anti-Mormon stuff that said all the same things. So, after all the rambling, I'll just say that you're probably right--there is very little that can be targeted at a TBM that will have any success. Perhaps only direct quotes from the JD would be good--it can't be called anti Mormon if there is absolutely no commentary! To start off: Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.
(Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Volume 10, p. 109) -Dan
|
Posted by: Gunnar ®
10/21/2002, 19:41:42
Author Profile Mail author
|
You asked, "what could be written that would shed light on these issues for a TBM? Who would have to write it? An apostle? The prophet himself?"I very strongly suspect that if Gordon B. Hinckley himself suddenly "came clean" and confessed that Joseph Smith was a pious fraud, and that there was no factual basis for the origins of the BoM and the BoA, a goodly percentage of "true believers" would dismiss even that as valid justification for abandoning their faith. The remaining General Authorities would probably succeed in convincing many that he had simply succumbed to the enticings of the adversary, despite his formerly exalted status, and become a fallen prophet, turning his back on the truth. I can't help but wonder, though, how many of the GAs realize deep down how shaky the foundations for the Church's claims really are. Surely some, if not most of them, are at least as familiar with the evidence presented by Mike White as he is. Are some of them deliberately perpetuating what they know is a fraud? If so, are they doing it for personal gain, or because they sincerely believe that, despite its questionable origins, it fulfills a genuine emotional need in many who choose to believe it, and is conducive to their happiness, well being and good behavior? What would happen if some scandalous and/or undeniable and widely publicized finding involving the Church suddenly made it abundantly clear to even the most obtuse believers that it was not the divinely led and inspired organization it claims to be? How many of these disillusioned "true believers" would abandon even the valid and worthwhile principles of honest, moral behavior taught by the Church in their anger and disappointment, throwing out the baby with the wash water? Apparently some who leave the Church do that now. I would also not be surprised if a significant number of them were driven to suicidal depression. Gunnar
|
Posted by: RC ®
10/21/2002, 21:54:50
Author Profile Mail author
|
I would definitely agree with both nofaith and Gunnar on this. It is virtually impossible to get TBM (true believing Mormons) to look at anything that might run contrary to their beliefs. When I left the church I posted my reasons (not really a Martin Luther type posting, but I guess in a sense it was) online. Even my most liberal-minded brother had a problem with that. Everyone in my family wanted me to take the information off the internet and they definitely didn't want me to offer a link to lds-mormon.com I wasn't even really arguing against the Church, just explaining why I left (here's the link if anyone is interested: http://www.2years.onasoapbox.com/9-Religion/Why%20we%20left.htm ).
One point that Nofaith brought up that I can comment on... Ideally, quotes from Mormons (past prophets and general authorities specifically), would help Mormons see that there are problems with their religion. Two comments about that. First, a lot of intended anti-Mormon literature is written in a format along those lines. They will find damaging remarks made by Mormons and give long quotes with very little commentary. There is an excellent essay on this in Differing Visions: Dissenters in Mormon History when they talk about the Tanners. The basic idea is that the Tanners, when writing their anti-Mormon literature, set up a chapter by saying, "Did you know that...." Then they quote a whole bunch of stuff with little or no commentary and at the end they say, "This proves such and such." So, as much as I would want to agree with you, I don't think that quotes by their own leaders would convince them or even get them to think. My second comment on this is a scene from The Life of Brian, the infamous, anti-religion film by Monty Python. Near the end of the movie Brian is just trying to get away from the mob, but everything that he says or does the mob turns into a sort of belief. I guess the point is, if people want to believe, despite even the efforts of the alleged founder of the religion, they will find something to believe in. This goes along with Gunnar's comment that even if Gordon Hinckley fell away, the Mormon church would continue. If I'm not mistaken, this could be easily explained away. Not only do Mormons believe that the very elect will fall away in the 'last-days', but they also believe that if a prophet were going to lead them astray, he would be instantly removed from his position of leadership in the church. So, yes, Mormons could even withstand the dissent of one of the most important general authorites. As for getting TBM's to examine their religion, any methods that might work.... Hmmm.... You could try begging them on your hands and knees to read something by D. Michael Quinn and explain that he still believes in Mormonism but that he was excommunicated for presenting Mormon history accurately (of course, they wouldn't believe you, but you could try). You could try being the nicest person in the world and the most saintly and even encourage them to remain Mormons. This might run counter to the belief that most Mormons hold (based on what Joseph Smith said) that anyone that leaves the Church will immediately turn against it. If you don't turn against the church, perhaps it will create enough cognitive dissonance to get the TBM's to wonder what you did and why. (Again, I doubt it, they would likely still find some way to dismiss your behavior - hallucinogenic drugs, strange new beliefs, who knows, once your out, your out). You could send them faith affirming books about Mormon prophets (biographies and such) with a page of quotes included somewhere in the middle that has all of the damaging stuff the prophet said. Would this be considered deceit if the intent is to get them to realize that they are being deceived? Two wrongs don't necessarily make a right, but they could! But, I think I would have to ultimately conclude that the best way to get TBM's to see that there might be some problems with their church is to encourage them to get a good education - preferrably a graduate education outside of Utah. (Reference: College Attendance and Attitude-Change - a Panel Study, 1970-81; Funk, R. B., 1987) This study essentially points out that higher education has a liberalizing effect on people. Based on anecdotal evidence, I would think that most of the posters on this site have at least a college education if not more - see the connection? How many subscribers to Sunstone and Dialogue don't have college educations? I'm sure there are some and I don't want to discriminate against anyone by anyone stretch, some people don't need a college education to change their views, but it is a very effective method of doing so. Anyway, enough said. It would be interesting to see if anyone has had any success in getting people interested (other than nofaith's interestee who was exed) and how they did so. Good posts though by nofaith and gunnar, thanks.
|
Posted by: p300 ®
10/22/2002, 14:19:28
Author Profile Mail author
|
"But, I think I would have to ultimately conclude that the best way to get TBM's to see that there might be some problems with their church is to encourage them to get a good education - preferrably a graduate education outside of Utah."So true! The biggest impact my graduate education had on my belief in the church was the emphasis the faculty placed on knowing how we know things. What is the basis for our claims? So in the year before I lost my faith I had determined to sort out my beliefs - I wanted to learn the scriptural or revelatory basis for believing what I believed, and I wanted to sort out beliefs that were contradictory. That put me on the fast lane to the end.
|
Posted by: Martin ®
10/22/2002, 18:07:50
Author Profile Mail author
|
With respect, I very strongly feel that both of you are grossly overstating the need for a graduate-level education in the given context!All that is really necessary for even TBM's to question their beliefs is some quality education (even self-education) in critical thinking and a bit of intellectual integrity. One needn't even be a high school graduate for that!
- Martin
|
Posted by: Gunnar ®
10/22/2002, 21:46:45
Author Profile Mail author
|
I agree that getting a good education is an excellent idea, but I don't know that it necessarily has to be achieved via formal, academic programs that confer advanced degrees. More important, I think, is a willingness to continue to explore and learn on one's own, independent of formal, academic study programs. To the extent that such programs encourage one to do that, and qualify one for satisfying, productive occupations such programs are, of course, valuable. I have known and heard of, however, people with very advanced degrees who manage to remain extremely bigotted and even ignorant on important issues. Sometimes highly "educated" people use their advanced degrees as an excuse to regard themselves as superior to and disdain others whom they deem less educated than themselves.Gunnar
|
Posted by: RC ®
10/23/2002, 00:01:01
Author Profile Mail author
|
I don't disagree with your statment at all. Let me just clarify my point a little and we'll see what you think.When posting my original comment about getting a graduate education, the thought I was addressing was how to get people that are not willing to examine their beliefs to examine their beliefs. If someone is inherently willing to do so, then I agree with you wholeheartedly, it is not necessary to get a graduate education. If, however, they are not willing to examine their beliefs, I think that an advanced education is a good way of doing that. Thus, the point of my post was to put forth a possible way of getting people that don't want to examine their beliefs to do so. I don't think we disagree at all. I think it just depends upon the particular interests and motivations of the person.
|
Posted by: RC ®
10/23/2002, 00:06:04
Author Profile Mail author
|
Interesting that we agree on so much. You wouldn't happen to be a sociologist by any chance, would you :) ? Or maybe you grew up in Morgan, UT in a liberal-as-Mormons-go but conservative as-the-rest-of-the-nation goes family? Perhaps you danced ballet; or played soccer? Just thought I'd ask. Lot of striking similarities and agreements of belief. Hope you stick around on the board; it's good to have someone that agrees with me. By the way, I really liked your essay. I'm sure you read my original review, but I'll just reiterate that comment, it was well-thought out. Perhaps if someone wants to know why I left, I'll send them to read your essay instead of trying to come up with one on my own.
|
Posted by: sansfoy ®
10/19/2002, 06:10:30
Author Profile Mail author
|
I'm not the author of that essay, although he is a friend of mine. What I *am* is the creator of Zarahemla City Limits. Glad you enjoyed it and I'll be sure to pass along your enjoyment to Mike.
|
Posted by: Craig C. ®
10/19/2002, 11:12:40
Author Profile Mail author
|
You are among the most interesting posters who have frequented this board.
|
Posted by: Cal ®
10/19/2002, 11:41:37
Author Profile Mail author
|
In selfish moments, I wish you were still posting here. But obviously your time is better spent elsewhere.At any rate, please pass on to Michael White that I admire his essay, for what that's worth. Cal
|
Posted by: Alf Omega ®
10/19/2002, 12:31:24
Author Profile Mail author
|
From my lurking on ZLMB lately, I gather that your new mission in life is to demonstrate to reactionary apologists how unrabid a former believer can be. Bravo!
|
Posted by: Kevin ®
10/20/2002, 12:44:51
Author Profile Mail author
|
That's a great site you have. I look forward to reading each essay!
|
Posted by: p300 ®
10/19/2002, 11:35:50
Author Profile Mail author
|
I'll fess up to being the author. A friend on another board alerted me to this thread. I appreciate your interest.Anyway, like some of you have commented, I don't know who it will really reach, and none of the topics are treated with enough depth to show how quick dismissals by apologists don't make the issues go away. This started as a letter to my family, as a way to sum up all of the major issues for them so that they could see how extensive my problems are with the church. It finally turned into a form of therapy for me - a way to just put so many of my thoughts down in one place. So, for whatever it's worth sansfoy put it up on his site and I feel like I've made at least a tiny contribution to the Mormon internet! I've just been curious to know what people think of it. So, thanks again for your interest. Mike
|
Posted by: sansfoy ®
10/19/2002, 20:17:39
Author Profile Mail author
|
Hey, good to see you outside of the NOMdom. As for "tiny" contribution, the illustrious Bill Shunn has even given you a direct link from his site. That alone puts you in elect company.
|
Posted by: Kevin ®
10/20/2002, 12:50:59
Author Profile Mail author
|
Hi Mike,Thanks for writing your essay. To tell you the truth, I had the idea not long ago of writing a similar essay for my family (particularly my wife, who is having a difficult time with my "apostacy"). Interestingly, my essay was also going to be called "Why I No Longer Believe"! Ah well, I guess I'll have to come up with a different title! ;) The thing I like most about your essay is that it covers so many of the major points that people in the Church ought to know about. While I may have dismissed your essay when I was a staunch believer, it would have been very valuable to me during my transition period. I hope others in similar situations will come across your article. Nice job!
|
Posted by: Gunnar ®
10/21/2002, 20:20:29
Author Profile Mail author
|
It parallels to a large extent my own path to disbelief, especially the parts about the failed attempts to gain a testimony via prayer and fasting. Like you, I found it impossible to ignore the fact that many people of many diverse religions believe just as strongly as TBMs do that their beliefs have been divinely confirmed. It bewilders me that so many fail to see that the simple, undeniable fact there are so many, mutually contradictory systems of religious belief, all of whose adherents claim to have found absolute truth via subjective faith in prayer, divine revelation and scripture study, is the strongest possible evidence of the unreliability of that approach to discerning any kind of truth, whether religious or secular. Even if one of these mutually contradictory belief systems really is the absolute and complete truth its adherents claim it to be, the unreliability of that approach is still very solidly established.Gunnar
|
Posted by: p300 ®
10/22/2002, 14:23:33
Author Profile Mail author
|
This has been such a difficult point to get accross to family and friends. Some no longer even believe that my testimony and spiritual experiences were ever real, although they had no problem believing them when I was TBM. I have yet to see anyone pinpoint the key thing that is supposed to be so unique about LDS testimonies.
|
Posted by: Jersey Girl ®
10/20/2002, 14:12:20
Author Profile Mail author
|
Why is it that when a LDS says they no longer believe, that they go on to say they don't believe in "the church"? Why is their belief in the church and not God? Or are they one and the same to an LDS?Vicki
|
Posted by: nofaith ®
10/20/2002, 15:12:14
Author Profile Mail author
|
Vicki:The "Church" for Mormons refers to the beliefs and the perfect organization that God supposedly instituted. Mormons believe that the "Church" is the only true church, and is ultimately run by God. When a Mormon says he doesn't believe in the "Church" anymore, he is rejecting that idea: that it is really God's church, and the only true church. He no longer believes it to be the ultimate source of truth and knowledge, as he once did. A general authority once tried to distinguish between the Church and the "gospel," saying that one was an institution that changed with time, and the other was made up of unchanging truths. When his talk was printed in the Ensign, it was censored. The Mormon Church wants people to consider its Church as absolutely "true" and the ultimate source of knoweldge. > Why is their belief in the church and not God? The beliefs of Mormonism of course include a belief in God. Their belief is both in the Church and in God. They do not believe in just one--the two are completely intertwined. > Or are they one and the same to an LDS? No, one is simply included in the other. It is noteworthy that many LDS, when they stop believing in the Church, retain a belief in God. They simply stop trusting the Church to give them accurate information about that being. Think of it this way. If I have a broker who rips me off, I can say I no longer "believe in investing my money with him," but I still may believe in investment, and in some of what he taught me. Similarly, if someone realizes the Church lies about its history, they may decide the "teachings of the Church aren't true", but still believe in God or even some of those teachings. They also (like me) may decide to totally reject a belief in God, if they realize that it was a false idea that they only accepted because of their belief that everything the Church taught was true. Compared to non-denominational churches, the Mormon church is very different. It teaches that belonging to a specific organization is necessary for salvation, that that organization is the conduit for all truth, and that that organization is led by God Himself. When a Mormon finds out (or decides) that all that is false, it is really his belief in the Church that has wavered. It is irrelevant whether he chooses to continue believing in God, Christ, the Bible, etc. He has decided that the Church is NOT what it says it is: God's Kingdom on earth, and that is what a loss of belief in "the Church" is all about. -Dan
Modified by nofaith at Sun, Oct 20, 2002, 15:13:25
|
|
