199 replies to this topic

[Log]

I just read the wikipedia entry on CogDis; is it accurate enough?

Quote

Cognitive dissonance is a discomfort caused by holding conflicting cognitions (e.g., ideas, beliefs, values, emotional reactions) simultaneously. In a state of dissonance, people may feel surprise, dread, guilt, anger, or embarrassment.

It seems simple.

Edited by Log, 25 April 2012 - 08:50 PM.

[CV75]

I realized that moments of doubt, despite faithfully practicing my religion, were tests. I can't say these moments of doubt were brought about by processing outside information. They were strictly an internal dynamic for whatever reason the Lord sought to test me by withdrawing His Spirit from me for those moments. As I remembered the power of faith and the results of past experience with faith, new enlightenment on the subject at hand quickly dispelled the doubt.

So regardless of what we process rationally, or what we experience when the Spirit withdraws, faith still has power (we can still have it and exercise a particle of it even wthout the power or companionship of the Holy Ghost). Rationality is only one of many mortal attributes we need to learn to harness for the future.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Quote

Cognitive dissonance is a discomfort caused by holding conflicting cognitions (e.g., ideas, beliefs, values, emotional reactions) simultaneously. In a state of dissonance, people may feel surprise, dread, guilt, anger, or embarrassment.

The wikipedia continues (and this is also important):

Quote

The theory of cognitive dissonance in social psychology proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by altering existing cognitions, adding new ones to create a consistent belief system, or alternatively by reducing the importance of any one of the dissonant elements.

Ok. So what does this mean? The theory of cognitive dissonance suggests that this discomfort forces us to change.  Festinger, in his introduction (A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance) explains it this way:

Quote

Since there will be a more formal discussion of this point later on in this chapter, let us now examine how dissonance may be reduced using as an illustration the example of the habitual smoker who has learned that smoking is bad for his health. He may have acquired this information from a newspaper or magazine, from friends, or even from some physician. This knowledge is certainly dissonant with cognition that he continues to smoke. If the hypothesis is correct, what would the person involved be expected to do?

I. He might simply change his cognition about his behavior by changing his actions; that is, he might stop smoking. If he no longer smokes, then his cognition of what he does will be consonant with the knowledge that smoking is bad for his health.
2. He might change his "knowledge" about the effects of smoking. This sounds like a peculiar way to put it, but it expresses well what must happen. He might simply end up believing that smoking does not have any deleterious effects, or he might acquire so much "knowledge" pointing to the good effects it has that the harmful aspects become negligible. If he can manage to change his knowledge in either of these ways, he will have reduced, or even eliminated, the dissonance between what he does and what he knows.

But in the above illustration it seems clear that the person may encounter difficulties in trying to change either his behavior or his knowledge. And this, of course, is precisely the reason that dissonance, once created, may persist. There is no guarantee that the person will be able to reduce or remove the dissonance. The hypothetical smoker may find that the process of giving up smoking is too painful for him to endure. He might try to find facts and opinions of others to support the view that smoking is not harmful, but these attempts might fail. He might then remain in the situation where he continues to smoke and continues to know that smoking is harmful. If this turns out to be the case, however, his efforts to reduce the dissonance will not cease.

Indeed, there are some areas of cognition where the existence of major dissonance is customary. This may occur when two or more established beliefs or values, all relevant to the area of cognition in question, are inconsistent. That is, no opinion can be held, and no behavior engaged in, that will not be dissonant with at least one of these established beliefs.(pp. 5-7)

One particularly important aspect of this is mentioned just a few pages later:

Quote

Indeed, one of the important consequences of the theory of dissonance is that it will help us understand some circumstances where the cognitive elements do not correspond with reality. But it does mean that if the cognitive elements do not correspond with a certain reality which impinges, certain pressures must exist. We should therefore be able to observe some manifestations of these pressures. This hypothesized relation between the cognitive elements and reality is important in enabling measurement of dissonance, and we will refer to it again in considering data. (p. 11)

In other words (and this is the simple version), cognitive dissonance requires change. If no change occurs (either in beliefs or in actions) then we can comfortably assume (most of the time) that no cognitive dissonance was experienced. If change occurs, then we can suggest that perhaps cognitive dissonance occurred and was resolved (by the change). According to Festinger, we naturally move to resolve cognitive dissonance as quickly as possible, and we remain in a cognitive dissonant state, it is usually because there is no apparent way to change so that the dissonant state is resolved. In his example, this could potentially be a smoker who is addicted to nicotine while knowing that smoking is killing him, he simply cannot quit. We might see this in a soldier who was drafted to go to war, but finds war (in any form) or even violence for that matter utterly repulsive. And yet there he is, being forced to engage in both.

Generally speaking, we don't speak about cognitive dissonance itself, but rather about the changes that are the evidence that cognitive dissonance may have been experienced. Part of this is because competing cognitions don't automatically cause dissonance. One of Festinger's observations was that some people have a very high tolerance for dissonance in their beliefs and actions. Just experiencing dissonance does not create the "discomfort" that is used to decribe cognitive dissonance.

And this brings us back to this thread. You suggested that:

Quote

Cognitive Dissonnance - when your mind sees a conflict to an established way of behavior, belief, or understanding that you use and see as acceptable, and your mind has to find a new way to handle now that a conflicting piece of information has been added. - My definition... not sure how accurate

And now we get to this more basic problem. Finding out about seer stones as opposed to a Urim and Thummim doesn't, by itself, seem to serve as much of a basis for cognitive dissonance. In fact, since no actions or behaviors are generally determined by this distinction, we can guess that this kind of cognitive dissonance is very, very easy to deal with. This is probably true of most historical issues and discrepancies. So we can start with the assumption that historical differences are not the cause of cognitive dissonance. When we talk about faith, we could see two generally larger categories of cognitive dissonance. On the one side, we might have people who believe in the gospel, and who aren't living it. They may be having an affair, they may be engaged in unethical business practices, they may be smokers with an addiction. This could certainly cause some kind of cognitive dissonance (that may persist for a variety of reasons). We may have some who no longer believe in the gospel and for a variety of reasons continue to pay tithing and attend church (again for a variety of reasons). Sometimes these may result in behavioral changes so that the dissonance goes away (either more fully engaging in the gospel or leaving the church). When we get into these discussions, the challenge becomes much more complex than it seems on the surface. I have some other thoughts, but let me start a new post for them.

[Log]

Benjamin McGuire, on 26 April 2012 - 08:12 AM, said:

And now we get to this more basic problem. Finding out about seer stones as opposed to a Urim and Thummim doesn't, by itself, seem to serve as much of a basis for cognitive dissonance. In fact, since no actions or behaviors are generally determined by this distinction, we can guess that this kind of cognitive dissonance is very, very easy to deal with. This is probably true of most historical issues and discrepancies. So we can start with the assumption that historical differences are not the cause of cognitive dissonance.

Ben, if I may interject, you're not grasping Reelmormon's problem as I perceive it.

RM's issue, as he said in the other thread, was that his spiritual witness - the manifestation of the Spirit to him - was that what he was being taught about the Church was true: all of it.  And yet he found out subsequently that the Church's version of history is, to his appreciation, vastly oversimplified.

That is, the Church presents its history one way, when, in fact, the actual history is quite a bit more complex, nuanced, and perhaps even less-than-obviously faith-promoting.  When one expects (and, to be blunt, has good reasons to expect) perfect, complete truth from the Church, and perceives that there is less than perfect, complete truth coming from it, that's a problem.

Hence, something like the seer-stone vs. Urim and Thummim is a perfectly adequate object of cognitive dissonance, as are any perceived discrepancies between what the Church teaches as its history, and what the documents actually say.

Edited by Log, 26 April 2012 - 08:39 AM.

[Benjamin McGuire]

So, the challenge occur that can cause the crisis of faith (and, for the record, I believe that crisis of faith are a nearly universal sort of thing - although they don't always revolve around the same set of issues). Crisis occurs in faith when we change how we know things.

In this case, when we deal with historical issues as a faith crisis, the trigger isn't so much the conflict as the fact that the conflict occurs as we engage in a new way of knowing about the church. This aspect is where we might say that the institutional church has added to the problem more than it has reduced it. The church does this by engaging in its history only in a superficial way and as a cover so to speak, for teaching doctrine and theology. The church leads us to believe that it is also trying to teach us history - even though, very often, is something that is more cultural myth than history. When members discover history as history (or what they perceive as history) they enter a new way of knowing about the church, and this leads to conflict that creates crisis. In terms of the earlier comments, its not that we get new information or new knowledge, art of the challenge is that its new information and new knowledge in an entirely different kind of framework - and a knowledge that doesn't necessarily challenge old knowledge so much as it challenges the framework. It's not the realization that maybe when we speak of the Urim and Thummim we might really be meaning a seer stone so much as the realization that what the church passed off on us as history is clearly not history in any academic sense. These issues are particularly prevalent when we deal with strongly held views that we might call "normative" (especially when those views are inaccurate).

What can be done?

I don't think we need to open up our lessons to the most difficult, or most critical issues. I think that in every situation these will be different from person to person. Given that each member is at a different place, wholesale exposing people to the areas of most concern probably is not completely beneficial. I also do not think that the church would serve its members best by focusing a lot on history. I do think that the church needs to recognize that limiting resources to just that which comes through correlation is itself part of the problem and that the risks of trying to create such tight control inevitably add to this issue. If I had to make three suggestion to the curriculum committee of the church, it would be these:

1: Teachers (and curriculum material) should be encouraged to avoid reinforcing dogmatic perspective. They could be religious, they could be political, they could be hyper nationalistic. How many times was I given a comment that involved some rather dogmatic (and probably incorrect) statement? Teachers need to allow some liberty among their class members for a wide range of beliefs - and whether or not something is a widely held normative point of view, if we don't reinforce that as a perception among the members of the church, or if we downplay what is perceived as normative (and dogmatic) differing opinions will not be so likely to cause a crisis of faith.

2: Lessons need to involve some kind of critical thinking for both teachers and students. Providing everything bundled up neatly with a quote from a General Authority to boot is to some extent destructive of the kind of education that we need to provide. One of the most ironic lessons for this year (in my opinion) is lesson 3. There we discuss Nephi's vision of the Tree of Life. The contrast Nephi wants to draw is between his own approach (go to God for understanding and personal revelation) and the approach of his brothers (let's ask Nephi - who because of his experience can be seen as authoritative in explaining it). This is followed up by a discussion of the symbolism in the dream from ... Elder Jeffrey Holland. And the lesson we are being taught is that being Nephi is not as good as being Laman and Lemuel. Less may well be more. Reading quotes does not engage the critical thinking skills of class members.

3: If we are worried about exposure to history, then perhaps we need to make clear demarcations in our curriculum material. Take some time to talk about history and make it real history without the need for ethical judgments or the (often unstated) moral conclusions. Then take some time to talk about theology and doctrine. If we want to emphasize both, then we need to include both - and not to confuse them in our curriculum. It should come as no surprise when we see a person experience a crisis of faith in which they are confusing historical elements as representing some kind of gospel truth - because our lessons do just this. We teach gospel truth through (often misrepresented) historical discussions. If we want to use experiences as examples, then lets use our own experiences - something that we don't get through many layers of interpretation and often normative and dogmatic belief.

Ben M.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Quote

Ben, if I may interject, you're not grasping Reelmormon's problem as I perceive it.

Yes, that's probably true. On the other hand, I also believe that I am grasping his problem.

Ben M.

[Log]

Benjamin McGuire, on 26 April 2012 - 08:55 AM, said:

Yes, that's probably true. On the other hand, I also believe that I am grasping his problem.

Ben M.

Awesome one-liner.  Slow clap-worthy.

Where am I wrong, oh wittier-than-I?

Edited by Log, 26 April 2012 - 09:04 AM.

[Kevin Christensen]

Log, on 26 April 2012 - 08:38 AM, said:

Ben, if I may interject, you're not grasping Reelmormon's problem as I perceive it.

RM's issue, as he said in the other thread, was that his spiritual witness - the manifestation of the Spirit to him - was that what he was being taught about the Church was true: all of it.  And yet he found out subsequently that the Church's version of history is, to his appreciation, vastly oversimplified.

What does the statement, "the Church was true: all of it," actually mean?   A church is simply a gathering, an assembly, a bunch of people.  Truth is a knowledge of things as they are, as they were, and as they are to come.  So it the idea that the collective gathering has all knowledge, is omniscient, and that a personal testimony confirms the reality of this static state of omniscience and uniform consistency?

Personally, I don't think the statement makes sense.  Alma 32 speaks orienting oneself towards accumulated "cause to believe" rather than once and for all, "knowing."  And during the process of gathering information  and experience, including spiritual confirmation, he says, "Is your knowledge perfect?"  The blunt answer, "Nay."  He says we have to continue the process.  A growing seed changes shape.  A perfect, static crystal does not.  New wine needs new bottles.

And the starting attitude is neatly decribed here:

PERRY SCHEME OF COGNITIVE AND ETHICAL GROWTH
TABLE OF TRAITS BY POSITION AND TRANSITION
POSITION 1 - Basic Duality.  (Garden of Eden Position: All will be well.)
The person perceives meaning divided into two realms-Good/Bad, Right/wrong, We/They, Success/Failure, etc. They believe that knowledge and goodness are quantitative, that there are absolute answers for every problem and authorities know them and will teach them to those who will work hard and memorize them.
Agency is "Out there". The person is so embedded here that there is no place from which to observe themselves, yet they have a dim sense of there being a boundary to Otherness somewhere that gives their Eden-like world view boundary.

Transition 1-2 - Dualism modified.  (Snake whispers.) The person starts to be aware of others and of differing opinions, even among authorities. This started the feeling of uncertainty.  But they decide it is part of the authority's job to pose problems.  It takes hard work to deny the legitimacy of diversity and to keep the belief in the simplicity of truth.

(It should be kept in mind that in any of the transition states it is easy for the person to become depressed.  It takes time for the "guts to catch up with leaps of mind."  When a sense of loss is accorded the honor of acknowledgement, movement is more rapid and the risk of getting stuck in apathy, alienation, or depression is reduced.  When one steps into new perceptions he is unlikely to take another until he comes to terms with the losses attendant on the first.)

POSITION 2 - Multiplicity Prelegitimate.  (Resisting snake)

Now the person moves to accept that there is diversity, but they still think there are TRUE authorities who are right, that the others are confused by complexities or are just frauds.  They think they are with the true authorities and are right while all others are wrong.  They accept that their good authorities present problems so they can learn to reach right answers independently.  

Perry observes a condition common to students entering Harvard from everywhere.  It is natural stage of human development, not a unique condition caused by the weaknesses of official Mormon pedagogy, nor by the inattention and slowness to listen and comprehend key information that is presented.

Quote

That is, the Church presents its history one way, when, in fact, the actual history is quite a bit more complex, nuanced, and perhaps even less-than-obviously faith-promoting.

Again, what is the Church?  Mine includes multiple sources of information, not just officially produced manuals, but every individual in it.  Ben and Dan Peterson and Hugh Nibley and Richard Bushman and Larry Poulsen and Wendy Ulrich and Jana Riess and Shauna Christensen are just as much "the church" to me as the people who produce the manuals.  The Joseph Smith papers are not being produced by a conspiracy of people who want to manipulate me into sheep-like conformity and eternal naivity.

Quote

When one expects (and, to be blunt, has good reasons to expect) perfect, complete truth from the Church, and perceives that there is less than perfect, complete truth coming from it, that's a problem.

Has good reasons to expect?  Really?  A human stage of development, perhaps.  I often quote Kuhn on "anomally emerges against a background of expectation."  The more rigid and exacting the expectations, the more anomalies produced.

D&C 1, not a secret document, sets expectations in a completely different way.  "Inasmuch as they erred, it might be made manifest..." If we read it.  If I don't read it, should I bitterly resent the Church?  I think D&C 1 gives me good reasons to expect imperfection and to feel comfortable with the situation.  One of the perks is that if I run into something I don't like, say Parry's Ensign essay on Noah, or some unpleasant remark of Brigham Young's, I don't have to suffer a shattering disillusion.  Nor do I have to define my relationship with Parry or the Ensign or Brigham in terms of disappointing moment.  I am able to widen my gaze, and broaden my pespective and make allowances for them, just as I hope to have for my own.

Quote

Hence, something like the seer-stone vs. Urim and Thummim is a perfectly adequate object of cognitive dissonance, as are any perceived discrepancies between what the Church teaches as its history, and what the documents actually say.

I see a mote eye problem a wine and wine bottle problem.  Nothing insurmountable by anyone who makes an effort to knock and seek and learn.

Kevin Christensen
Pittsburgh, PA

[Log]

Kevin,

I've laid out the basic conflict in as stark, straightforward, and literal terms as I could.  I think we're speaking at cross purposes.

I'm saying the source of the crisis is valid on its face, and it must be addressed at that level, which, I think, Ben M. does when he hints at some institutional corrective actions that can be taken when teaching our institutional past.

Quote

Nothing insurmountable by anyone who makes an effort to knock and seek and learn.

Which is what led Reelmormon here.  

Edited by Log, 26 April 2012 - 09:46 AM.

[KevinG]

Is it time to repost "I do not have a testimony of Church History?"

I think it is:

http://maxwellinstit...16&num=2&id=560

[DBMormon]

Quote

Okay, the first item on Dehlin's list is the Book of Abraham. Before I can respond, I need you to identify at least one specific historical issue with the Book of Abraham that is supposedly troubling?

If your speaking to me, I have no problem with it but many have left the church when finding out that almost all nonmormon scholars identify it as having nothing to do with what Joseph gave as a translation and instead say it is a standard funeral text as you know.  And yes I know it is likely some of the papyri are missing... again... not an issue to me but it is to many

[DBMormon]

Quote

Ben, if I may interject, you're not grasping Reelmormon's problem as I perceive it.

RM's issue, as he said in the other thread, was that his spiritual witness - the manifestation of the Spirit to him - was that what he was being taught about the Church was true: all of it. And yet he found out subsequently that the Church's version of history is, to his appreciation, vastly oversimplified.

That is, the Church presents its history one way, when, in fact, the actual history is quite a bit more complex, nuanced, and perhaps even less-than-obviously faith-promoting. When one expects (and, to be blunt, has good reasons to expect) perfect, complete truth from the Church, and perceives that there is less than perfect, complete truth coming from it, that's a problem.

Hence, something like the seer-stone vs. Urim and Thummim is a perfectly adequate object of cognitive dissonance, as are any perceived discrepancies between what the Church teaches as its history, and what the documents actually say.

Log, I couldn't have said it better.  This is really the root of my issue at times and I would bet the issue of numerous others.  The church is happy letting me believe the simple basic faith promoting story as long as they can and then only offer a more realistic way of seeing the church  and answers to tough issues when I have gone out of my way to discover difficult issues... not saying that is how they do it, only that is how I emotionally percieved it as it has happened several times

[DBMormon]

Quote

In this case, when we deal with historical issues as a faith crisis, the trigger isn't so much the conflict as the fact that the conflict occurs as we engage in a new way of knowing about the church. This aspect is where we might say that the institutional church has added to the problem more than it has reduced it. The church does this by engaging in its history only in a superficial way and as a cover so to speak, for teaching doctrine and theology. The church leads us to believe that it is also trying to teach us history - even though, very often, is something that is more cultural myth than history. When members discover history as history (or what they perceive as history) they enter a new way of knowing about the church, and this leads to conflict that creates crisis. In terms of the earlier comments, its not that we get new information or new knowledge, art of the challenge is that its new information and new knowledge in an entirely different kind of framework - and a knowledge that doesn't necessarily challenge old knowledge so much as it challenges the framework. It's not the realization that maybe when we speak of the Urim and Thummim we might really be meaning a seer stone so much as the realization that what the church passed off on us as history is clearly not history in any academic sense. These issues are particularly prevalent when we deal with strongly held views that we might call "normative" (especially when those views are inaccurate).

What can be done?

I don't think we need to open up our lessons to the most difficult, or most critical issues. I think that in every situation these will be different from person to person. Given that each member is at a different place, wholesale exposing people to the areas of most concern probably is not completely beneficial. I also do not think that the church would serve its members best by focusing a lot on history. I do think that the church needs to recognize that limiting resources to just that which comes through correlation is itself part of the problem and that the risks of trying to create such tight control inevitably add to this issue. If I had to make three suggestion to the curriculum committee of the church, it would be these:



What can be done?

I don't think we need to open up our lessons to the most difficult, or most critical issues. I think that in every situation these will be different from person to person. Given that each member is at a different place, wholesale exposing people to the areas of most concern probably is not completely beneficial. I also do not think that the church would serve its members best by focusing a lot on history. I do think that the church needs to recognize that limiting resources to just that which comes through correlation is itself part of the problem and that the risks of trying to create such tight control inevitably add to this issue. If I had to make three suggestion to the curriculum committee of the church, it would be these:

1: Teachers (and curriculum material) should be encouraged to avoid reinforcing dogmatic perspective. They could be religious, they could be political, they could be hyper nationalistic. How many times was I given a comment that involved some rather dogmatic (and probably incorrect) statement? Teachers need to allow some liberty among their class members for a wide range of beliefs - and whether or not something is a widely held normative point of view, if we don't reinforce that as a perception among the members of the church, or if we downplay what is perceived as normative (and dogmatic) differing opinions will not be so likely to cause a crisis of faith.

2: Lessons need to involve some kind of critical thinking for both teachers and students. Providing everything bundled up neatly with a quote from a General Authority to boot is to some extent destructive of the kind of education that we need to provide. One of the most ironic lessons for this year (in my opinion) is lesson 3. There we discuss Nephi's vision of the Tree of Life. The contrast Nephi wants to draw is between his own approach (go to God for understanding and personal revelation) and the approach of his brothers (let's ask Nephi - who because of his experience can be seen as authoritative in explaining it). This is followed up by a discussion of the symbolism in the dream from ... Elder Jeffrey Holland. And the lesson we are being taught is that being Nephi is not as good as being Laman and Lemuel. Less may well be more. Reading quotes does not engage the critical thinking skills of class members.

3: If we are worried about exposure to history, then perhaps we need to make clear demarcations in our curriculum material. Take some time to talk about history and make it real history without the need for ethical judgments or the (often unstated) moral conclusions. Then take some time to talk about theology and doctrine. If we want to emphasize both, then we need to include both - and not to confuse them in our curriculum. It should come as no surprise when we see a person experience a crisis of faith in which they are confusing historical elements as representing some kind of gospel truth - because our lessons do just this. We teach gospel truth through (often misrepresented) historical discussions. If we want to use experiences as examples, then lets use our own experiences - something that we don't get through many layers of interpretation and often normative and dogmatic belief.

I really enjoyed this post and felt it offers some real solutions to avoid the problems related with the isssue this thread addresses

[Xander]

KevinG, on 26 April 2012 - 12:12 PM, said:

Is it time to repost "I do not have a testimony of Church History?"

I think it is:

http://maxwellinstit...16&num=2&id=560

I'll trump your Bitton with a little Shermer: http://www.minnpost....e-stupid-things

[bcuzbcuz]

reelmormon, on 25 April 2012 - 09:17 AM, said:

Being kind of in the middle from my view (spiritually I have a strong testimony, Historically I really struggle at times)  I would appreciate an attempt to handle this thread in a kinder nicer approach.....


The issue at heart at least to me as I have reflected is the former member's inability to disregard the historical narrative in favor of faith.  That in essence while they may have had spiritual experiences, those do not trump what seems to them as a historical narrative that places extreme doubt on the church's validity.

While the faithful seems to hold onto faith in the face of History that seems to bring into question the church's truth claims.  

You eloquently present the state for the two types of reasoning; analytical and intuitive. There is an intuitive nature to belief that draws conclusions based on personal observations of the world around us. This kind of thinking supports faith.

My interpretation of this is as follows: The world is beautiful, too beautiful to be merely a structure of happenstance, therefore it must have a designer, is the type of reasoning that is intuitive.

Analytical thinking pulls the threads of belief apart and examines them, one by one. Whoever designed the appendix must have been asleep on the job, falls into the other category.

A recent research project, published in Science, looks at these two ways of thinking and reviews how they influence religious belief.

http://www.ts-si.org...eligious-belief

The study found that when test subjects (some 650 persons in both US and Canada) were given problems of analytical thinking that this type of thinking process encouraged disbelief. The full study can be obtained from Science, but it costs. There are several sites that have brief summaries of the study.

Analytic Thinking Promotes Religious Disbelief

• Will M. Gervais,
  
• Ara Norenzayan.  

University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.

How does this apply to your question? You used the word 'spiritually' when talking about testimony and 'historically' when talking about struggles;Two entirely different ways of looking at a question.

[Log]

Quote

How does this apply to your question? You used the word 'spiritually' when talking about testimony and 'historically' when talking about struggles;Two entirely different ways of looking at a question.

I wish I could downvote posts.  That had absolutely no relevance to this thread, and is mere anti-religious polemic coupled with triumphalism.

Edited by Log, 29 April 2012 - 08:52 AM.

[Maidservant]

I can't remember if I posted in your last thread or not, but I did read through a lot and thought a lot.

I can only speak for myself and not any other, and I do not represent any category: I need to share that in my personal experience in engaging with those who conclude their struggles with historical issues of the church (or for whatever reason), they often assert that I am invalidating their struggle, and I am always flabbergasted because that is what I want to say to THEM: You are invalidating MY struggle!  *I* am not the one saying that a person cannot arrive at whatever place in their journey makes the most sense.  *I* am the one whose intelligence and process of thinking and believing is being called into question as something *I'm* not allowed to have***.  I am not accusing anyone.  I am simply saying this is my emotional experience in many discussions on the matter (not with everyone, of course).

Also as far as historical matters.  I am far more troubled by what seems to me that the Restored gospel is a re-furbishment of the Egyptian religion.  I think on this a lot, and this is one of my struggles, and I have my own reconciliations and trust-without-knowing-everything.  I can never be dismayed by polyandry, for example (alternative social structures are always cool to me) and BofA (content speaks for itself, I don't care if it came from a rubiks cube), for another example.

Anyway, I do appreciate the exploration you are doing reelmormon, but I'm just throwing out my experience here, too, for it's two cents or less .


*** i.e. I am made to feel that being a Mormon, and choosing to be a Mormon, is an invalid experience

Edited by Maidservant, 29 April 2012 - 09:02 AM.

[bcuzbcuz]

Log, on 29 April 2012 - 08:50 AM, said:

I wish I could downvote posts.  That had absolutely no relevance to this thread, and is mere anti-religious polemic coupled with triumphalism.

You are entitled to your opinion.

[why me]

Log, on 25 April 2012 - 08:49 PM, said:

I just read the wikipedia entry on CogDis; is it accurate enough?



It seems simple.

It is not so simple. The word is used by postmormons to discribe what all mormons are going through if they still believe in mormonism. In other words, the enlightened ones are the exmormons and  postmormons who no longer suffer from it because they are no longer members.

It is that simple.

Edited by why me, 29 April 2012 - 10:28 AM.

[why me]

Xander, on 29 April 2012 - 12:18 AM, said:

I'll trump your Bitton with a little Shermer: http://www.minnpost....e-stupid-things

No one should have a testimony that church history is perfect because it is made up of imperfect persons. History is history..it is full of interpretations and conflicts. Such is history...no matter what history it is.