mfbukowski Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 There is, of course, the "Law of the Conservation of the R". If you remove an "R" from a word, it cannot be destroyed. It must be now placed in some other word where an R would not be found. By such mechanics you may derive Cuber from Cuba.Unless of course one speaks with a heavy Asian accent in which all R's are converted to L's, and usually vice-versa.
mfbukowski Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 I find the idea of cultural Mormonism a Zion-centric thing. I am a doctrinal Mormon who is not very culturally Mormon. The vast majority of Saints throughout the world are very foreign to the ideas and behaviors of the "central stakes of Zion".This whole discussion ranks up there with Mormon music. Interesting and sometimes moving but for the most part not heard of outside of Utah and a few bookstores near temples.Plus one plus a hearty: I myself am a practicing Mormon but a cultural Unitarian Catholic. 1
Mike Reed Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 What if one is Thoreau-ly Mormon. Is that ok? My bishop seems to be ok with it. 2
volgadon Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 What if one is Thoreau-ly Mormon. Is that ok? My bishop seems to be ok with it.Brill. 1
wenglund Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 Brill.A flatfish in the turbot family? Thanks, -Wade Englud- 1
Popular Post Robert F. Smith Posted July 23, 2012 Popular Post Posted July 23, 2012 OK, you're trying to draw me out, and that's fine. How about the term "liberal?" That does, for all intents, summarize the core of the psychology and intellectual orientation of the NOM perspective. I think I already mentioned Joanna Brooks as emblematic of the general orientation. There are a number of people (I think Dehlin is a classic example) and several on-line communities dedicated to this perspective.Still being coy? I linked to Religion Dispatches, where there is an extensive archive of her essays.Not being coy at all, and I appreciate you're calling my attention to some of the fringe characters, although I have serious doubts that you are able to accurately describe them (along the lines of your assertion of the demise of the Maxwell Institute). I am more interested in the organizational structure of such groups (if they have any structure at all), and with the names and web sites of the major figures in such groups -- if they actually exist as more than a moniker which their enemies have created, paranoid or otherwise. If we are merely speaking of a "general orientation," I wouldn't give much credence to your claims.As for the term "liberal," it is meaningless. It does have emotive power, but little else, and cannot adequately be defined. Same applies to "conservative." These terms are entirely relative and vary so widely historically that one can term both Leonid Brezhnev and Ronald Reagan as "conservatives." How absurd.Huh? If you will go back and read my post, you will see clearly that my criticism there is aimed squarely at your having associated Joseph, Brigham, Roberts et al with the Left; with the likes, in other words, of Comte, Rousseau, Saint Simon, the Jacobins, Marx, and later and more importantly, those who applied these ideas in actual practice - Lenin, Stalin, Kun, Brezhnev, Mao, Ho, Pot, Kim, Castro, Che, Ortega etc., etc., and many other theorists of the same worldview who seek utopia through collectivist political redemption. I was hardly implying these things about Joseph or Brigham themselves (which would clearly be nonsensical, as none of these people ever approached concepts of an ideal society in collectivist terms, save for one short season, in the spartan and critical survival oriented Salt Lake period in which there was a much more military-like regimentation among the Saints necessary to physically survive under the harsh conditions there while creating a viable physical infrastructure).You expect me to take you seriously? I mentioned none of those characters, and certainly did not allude to them in any way. Yet, you do go on to suggest that Brother Brigham did do something unmentionable "for one short season" under very demanding conditions. What is this thing which may not be mentioned by name? Yes, here I am being coy. In an earlier comment on this very issue you held up Hugh Nibley for special contempt. Why do you seek occasion against good Saints? We might very well find ourselves in a prayer circle together sometime . . . 6
mfbukowski Posted July 23, 2012 Posted July 23, 2012 We might very well find ourselves in a prayer circle together sometime . . .These are wise words we all need to keep in mind. 1
Mike Reed Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 A flatfish in the turbot family? Thanks, -Wade Englud-That's got to be it.
Mike Reed Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 We might very well find ourselves in a prayer circle together sometime . . .If not in the circle, perhaps a name in the box being prayed for.
Tacenda Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 You all need lots of prayers after some of your comments, lol.
Tacenda Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 (edited) To put "nomism" in a nutshell. Nearly all have lost their belief in the church but to keep up appearances and not rock the boat with their TBM spouses, they continue to attend church for the most part. Although, some might only go to sacrament and skip the rest. Some hang out in the foyer, or walk the church grounds. Some hold callings from high counselor to nursery leader. But never tell them they can't be a mormon, it's in their blood, mormons are their tribe, so to speak.Alot of them suffer in silence, but none IMHO, are anti, they might vent on the NOM site but the minute one says something crass or anti they get shut down, I had an occasion in my angry phase, where that happened. Edited July 26, 2012 by Tacenda
CASteinman Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 (edited) I had an occasion in my angry phase, where that happened.Why is anger part of this deal? I wonder this all the time and it is sort of amazing to me. What do you think causes it?I have noticed this both among former Mormons and among newly minted atheists who used to be "Bible believing Christians". Have not seen it so much from former Catholics.For example, a friend of mine who became an atheist after discovering the Bible had flaws, was seething with anger for months stretching on for years. When I would encourage him to let go of his anger -- he would first proclaim that his anger was righteous and justified (but not sure how it is justified) and then, later, he would spew angry rants and claim he was not angry -- just proclaiming the truth. Not sure he ever exactly got a bead on just how angry he was.My theory on being angry over this sort of thing is that it somehow relates to influence of the adversary -- that the "spirit" of the evil one is part of these movements even when they are "preaching" something true (like the errancy of the Bible). This spirit infects people with the anger of satan and then they find various different ways to justify it in their lives... maybe family, maybe church leaders, maybe tithing.... but something that is visible and can be focused on instead of the source. Sometimes I think that they may even be angry at themselves! But they are never angry at satan for the destruction of their faith.I have not, for example, noticed children becoming furious and raging when they learn that Santa Claus is not real. Yet when they learn that God is not "real", adults will vent fury at adherents until they are blue.Something else I notice is that they will, at least for a while, work to see that others "might be miserable like unto" themselves.I always sort of think that they would see and feel this spirit being of darkness, but it seems rare that they do. Some, however, do make their way back to the light and peace of the Gospel.Edited to add:There is another type of rage that I have seen that looks like this. I don't think it is exactly the same but it looks similar. There are certain types of personality disorder where a person will place some other person in the role of Hero and put them in an impossible pedestal position. Then, when they fail, their love for that person will grow into contempt. When I have seen this, it appears to me to be the same -- and the individuals with this disorder are never ever able to see their former idol in positive terms again. I am not saying that people who have troubles with their testimony are mentally ill per se, but the process looks similar. Edited July 26, 2012 by CASteinman
Tacenda Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 (edited) I think the reason many are angry, or should I say, upset or frustrated, is when they've found out the church isn't perfect, in the sense that the men running it, didn't live up to the standards they set for them. Or when someone finds out something in church history that contradicts something they've been taught to believe. Or some have sacrificed time, talents, money, or made choices they might never have made if it wasn't for the church, only to find they don't believe it anymore. And so many don't believe in God, if they no longer believe in the church.Some like me have felt very lonely, feeling like they are bad for not keeping the faith. And wish they could go back to the security they once had.And usually they'll end up going to places like staylds.com or nom but some don't stop there, they go to carm, or exmormon boards. And then some move even further and go to other faith systems that think mormons are going to hell and it's their job to save them. I wish more could fall in a place like this board, it reminds me of a regular ward made up of a group of people that reach out to help those like me, all the while never compromising their own faith. Why might you ask, doesn't someone like me reach out to my own ward members? It's for fear that one might be rejected for even knowing something that to them is preposterous, and they aren't aware it might actually be a fact.Therefore, the godsend of this board, where people are knowledgeable of the issues and can give help and even answers to someone, is tremendous.I hope I was able to answer some of your questions CASteinman. Thanks for caring enough to ask them, and not judging too quickly or too harshly. Edited July 26, 2012 by Tacenda
KevinG Posted July 26, 2012 Posted July 26, 2012 I have noted a stronger reaction to loss of faith when the person was engaged in a more comprehensive system (Evangelism or Mormonism vs. liberal Protestantism) that defined their lives. Family ties to the religion amplify the tensions as family identification overlaps religious identification.regardless of truth claims: Leaving or even publicly doubting a religion like Mormonism is a difficult thing for those whose lives are entwined in the system. In this respect it was easier for me to walk away from Methodism and adopt Mormonism without reserve. It would take some strength of character to leave while leaving it alone.
Robert F. Smith Posted July 27, 2012 Posted July 27, 2012 If not in the circle, perhaps a name in the box being prayed for.Yes.How's GTU, Mike? R. Bushman said today that you, and Sheila Taylor are studying there. Say "hello" to Bob Rees for me.
CASteinman Posted July 27, 2012 Posted July 27, 2012 I think the reason many are angry, or should I say, upset or frustrated, is when they've found out the church isn't perfect, in the sense that the men running it, didn't live up to the standards they set for them. Or when someone finds out something in church history that contradicts something they've been taught to believe. Or some have sacrificed time, talents, money, or made choices they might never have made if it wasn't for the church, only to find they don't believe it anymore. And so many don't believe in God, if they no longer believe in the church.Do they feel that they were misled -- that the Church was described as perfect, even though it is mortal humans in charge of many jobs? I am at a loss on this. And wish they could go back to the security they once had.I don't know about any one particular person, but I believe this is entirely possible.Why might you ask, doesn't someone like me reach out to my own ward members? It's for fear that one might be rejected for even knowing something that to them is preposterous, and they aren't aware it might actually be a fact.Well.. maybe. You never know exactly how someone might be. But I have a story to mention on this. I was not struggling but I thought that this would have been great if I had been. I know this fellow who is very smart, very spiritual and very kindly. I was talking with him about some of the Adam God stuff that Brigham Young seemed to be pressing forward with. After a few moments he turned to me and said "Oh Brother Brigham --- sometimes I worry about him".I thought then, as I do now, how much this would have helped someone struggling with this as an issue. I hope I was able to answer some of your questions CASteinman. Thanks for caring enough to ask them, and not judging too quickly or too harshly.I think everyone is entitled to do things their way. Its part of life. We get to choose. Maybe we don't get to choose the consequences but we do get to choose what we will do and how we will go about it. I think this is a wonderful gift from God. 1
Mike Reed Posted July 27, 2012 Posted July 27, 2012 Yes.How's GTU, Mike? R. Bushman said today that you, and Sheila Taylor are studying there. Say "hello" to Bob Rees for me.Overwhelming... but GTU's good. Burnt out from the french that I have to learn this summer (in four weeks, actually... huh?), but besides this... I am really enjoying my time here. Love the campus. Nice to take courses at UCB too. So Dr. Bushman mentioned me? Where? The seminar/conference? Wow... so flattering. I'll say hi to Bob for ya. Absolutely. I plan to take his Mormon studies course this semester... finally.
Recommended Posts