SeekingUnderstanding

This makes it sound like you’re very much against a book that shows a child with two moms being read in a child’s class. But a book with opposite gendered parents would be ok. Correct?

A lot of ark steadying going on here.

What a pile of Christian hate.

Is this some type of game for you? Here are a couple scenarios for you. A group of women are in a hot tub together at a posh touristy hotel. Two men enter the hottub. Should the women in the hot tub assume that these men are a potential threat - even potential rapists? If you answered no, you're an idiot. One of the men sat down and groped one of the women's crotch with plausible deniability. Just another day being a woman. Scenario two. A woman spends a month with a host family in a foreign country. This family has hosted many young women before. There are children in the family and the family seems nice. While at the beach, the host offers to take the girl out on a battle board into the bay. Should the girl view the guy as a potential rapist? If you answered no, you're an idiot. The strong man while 100 feet from shore proceeds to grope the girl while she lies there petrified and terrified he might drown her in an "accident". She runs away that day, but nothing happens to the dad because plausible deniability. Just another day being a woman. But poor Spencer. He has to go through life knowing that woman can't tell if he is a threat to them. The horror. These stories are just two of the dozens of stories that I could share from just one woman that I know by the way. With utter contempt, John

This has been explained to you over and over and over and yet you refuse to listen.

I'll try to be more polite than my 2024 me. But it is very off putting how much of a victim you seem to want to be here. It's not about you. That's also a really big false dichotomy you have set up there.

I was curious, so I dug in a bit. Their study is linked below. Figure 14 shows a survey retention rate of 54% (which as I understand it, indicates the respondent indicates that they identified with the indicated religion as a teen and continue to do so). This compares with 82% for Hindus, 77% for Muslims, 76% for Jewish, 66% Orthodox; 57% Catholic. Buddhists were at 45%. The error bars on some of these numbers are pretty large. Latter-day Saints score better than many protestant faiths, but I'm not sure members of protestant traditions view changing church's the same way that the above listed religions do. That is, I'm not sure a Methodist deciding to be Baptist or Episcopalian carries the same weight as a Latter-day Saint becoming Methodist or vice versa. (If that makes sense). In order to arrive at the claim "retain members at significantly higher rates than most other religions", the study authors state "To understand retention rates, it is important to not only look at the percentage of who continue to identify as a member of their childhood religion as adults, but how many are regularly participating in religious services. ". Using some dubious math (IMO) they arrive at Figure 15 which puts Latter-day Saints on top. https://foundations.byu.edu/0000019b-1343-d613-a59b-17df82980000/latterdaysaintreligiosity-pdf

I disagree with you on what is the "default" worldview of the West, but I suspect that goes beyond the scope of this thread (at least the time I have for it). More to the point for me, when the god you grew up with no longer makes any sense, where does ultimate authority rest? In keeping with a Latter-day Saint tradition, the holy witness of the spirit is the pinnacle evidence of truth is it not? And that spiritual experience happens wholly within the self. I'm curious why you think that? I can't speak for everyone, only myself, but I certainly didn't evaluate religious claims via a secular lens (and based on the many conversations I've had with others that have left Mormonism, their experiences are similar to mine). I graduated from high school in rural Texas. I went off the college at BYU. I served a mission under a mission president that was a "No Death Before the Fall" kind of guy. I married at the Y, have 6 kids. Secularism in no way shaped the lens that I evaluated religious claims through. I first evaluated the religious claims that I was raised on based on their own criteria. They didn't work for me. The fruit they produced in my life was bad. I tried to reconstruct my faith, and that sort of worked for a while, but at the end of a long journey I had to admit to myself that I just didn't believe. When evaluating my lived life experiences (trying to lead a life of virtue and faith), the secular lens explained everything, and a religious lens just didn't fit my lived life experience. Again this is a bit backwards. I agree that people who are raised in a secular lens would find "submission, sacrifice, or trust" in unseen things to be extremely difficult. But since you are talking about people that leave - well people that leave don't start with that mindset. They start from a position of faith. Then something in their life prompts a reevaluation.

I think this is too shallow. People stop attending because they don’t believe. Many do turn to secularism but this treats secularism as a cause instead of a symptom. Secularism is more common because in a pluralistic society with access to a wide world of contradicting religion and views and information at our fingertips, rigid religious claims can’t withstand scrutiny (obviously in my opinion). It’s a broad ecosystem of ideas out there and people choose what makes the most sense to them.

Stretching the limits of the ai tool I think.

I'm really late to this thread, but holy cow are you out of touch. And privileged. "Character and community reputation matter. At church, court, or in social settings, people aren’t complete strangers. You can observe how someone treats others over time — their consistency, humility, self-control, and how they speak about women and children. Most decent men have a track record that becomes visible in a community." No no no no no. The most violating assaults my wife suffered were both from respected trusted known individuals. Get over yourself. Stop making this about your fragile ego. LISTEN to the women you respect in this thread and just stop. "Blanket suspicion of all men creates its own problems. If the default teaching is “all men are potential rapists,” it becomes very hard for good men to build trust," Good. Men need to work very hard to create respect. They need to call out bad behavior. They need to at all times be aware of how they can impact the well being of those around them. "even in safe settings like church." This from the church that teaches women they are responsible for being "Walking Pornography" for men. "It also teaches young women to live in unnecessary fear of half the population, which can be paralyzing." When this is a bigger problem than the harassment, I'm sure the women here will let us know.

I have pointed out that as a group, former members of your church identify as ex/post/former Mormon overwhelmingly. You don't want to use that terminology because you think your church leadership has told you not to. That's fine. But please don't pretend it comes from a clinical neutral place, when clearly you have a strong moral objection to using the word as indicated by your words "capitulation" and "surrendering your standards". Own it.

I have never seen an "Ex-LDS" thread so no idea how to find one there. Former mormon's for sure mock the church's 180 on the term Mormon. That has nothing to do with why they identify as such. I suspect it has everything to do with ease and simplicity. If I tell anyone anywere that I used to be Mormon, there is not further explanation needed. Easy peasy. You mean "Mormon" dialogue and discussion forum? I was simply curious why you don't call people how they prefer to be called. I mean I call members of your church, Latter-day Saints because that's their preference. I also call Latter-day Saints Christian because they identify as such. Should I drop these courtesies? I think not. Apparently such curtesy is one-sided in a "rules for thee but not for me" kind of way. Duly noted. You do you. Correct. If you have an ideological ax to grind against the word "Mormon", ex-LDS is the most factually precise wording to use (by default). But ONLY because you are ideologically opposed to the word Mormon. That is completely arbitrary choice and has nothing to do with the mostly widely used neutral nomenclature.

Wow, touched a nerve. CFR that identifying as post/ex/former Mormon is “intentionally” weaponizing the word.

I think people should be reffered to in ways that they prefer. That's why I refer to members as "Latter-day Saints" and not "Mormons". From Claude: Which is more common nomenclature, ex-LDS or ex-mormon. 11:39 AM "Ex-Mormon" is significantly more common. It's the dominant term used in everyday conversation, media, and online communities (the main Reddit community is r/exmormon, for example). "Ex-LDS" exists and is understood, but it's used much less frequently. "Former Mormon" is also common and tends to appear more in formal or journalistic writing, as it sounds slightly less charged than the "ex-" prefix.

Everyone i’ve personally interacted with who has left the church, when self identifying, uses the term "Mormon". Post-mormon. Ex-mormon. Formerly Mormon. I have never met someone who uses "LDS" or "Latter-day Saint" to identify their former membership.

Can you help me understand this terminology? I have never seen an ex-LDS forum or an individual who identifies as ex-LDS. Am I missing something?

So, simple reading, the KJV that was used is after the 1760s (probably the 1769 version). But only one data point (which is about a difference in an italic word) gives that date and the rest push it earlier to about 1660s (which is at the end of the EModE era). I agree that it is not easy to follow, especially when date ranges are used that don't even overlap. Some of the EModE that Carmack has mentioned were heavily used in the 1500s and some were heavily used in the 1600s. It is possible for 1 person to use both but it is odd. The EModE is really curious to me. I'm getting to the point that I can't see how Joseph could have done it but I don't know what that means. Exactly. So why is an author that is writing/translating in the 1500s quoting a bible that doesn't exist?

Do they? It’s so hard for me to follow. I seem to recall that they say some is much more archaic than the King James Bible. Which would point to authorship or translation earlier than a book that is extensively quoted throughout? Like what’s going on. And why?

Well I haven't been following that long, but the lack of any sort of coherent model here seems problematic. Why the Book of Mormon (purportedly written for our day, by a God that "speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding.") would be a mishmash of EModE that changes half way through 3 Nephi and is also interspersed with modern english is a mystery to me. That degree of tight control over the language seems to present challenges for other areas where apologists want to claim looser control to allow for mistakes and revisions.

I'm really trying to understand the theory here. What level of influence did Joseph's brain influence the text? It sounds like your position is none at all? Who translated the text then? You speak of changes in 3 Nephi. Are you posing two separate translators? More? Why isn't the text entirely EModE? Why the mishmash? I'd really like to understand what your hypothesis is for how the text was put together, and why God chose to do it that way.

It’s less than three minutes long just FYI. With the gist of it being available in the first minute.

I think links to Mormon stories dot com are automatically screened. This is YouTube. Channel name is not in link. I think it provides helpful context directly from the subject of the thread even if that individual has a pretty poor track record. As always, I happily submit to moderator judgment, and whatever punishments they may deem worthy.

John Dehlin has issued a response on his social channels detailing specific demands made by your church. His litany of demands bears little resemblance to the newsroom PR piece but is very similar to the lawsuit filed. I (genuinely)wonder who is telling the truth? On the one hand, John Dehlin often plays fast and loose with the facts. On the other hand, your church has a storied history of obfuscation and carefully worded denails going back to its founding. I eagerly wait (sarcastically) for the legal action against Mormon Housewives next.

As a branch from this topic it always surprised me that Latter-day Saints are as anti-trans as they are. It’s my understanding that Latter-day Saints view gender as an eternal characteristic. It’s also my understanding that Latter-day Saint doctrine allows for all types of trials in this mortal fallen world. It seems like a natural conclusion that, with those two tenets, some individuals would be born with a physical body that doesn’t align with their spirit gender. I mean people are born limbless? Is their spirit limbless as well? Some people are born with genetic abnormalities that cripple their intelligence. Are their spirits also crippled in this way? Some people are born intersex. Are their spirits intersex? People are born conjoined, deaf, blind, infertile. All manner of conditions. For those that believe trans men are just women, (and vice versa) why is gender misalignment the one thing that God doesn’t allow to happen in this world?