Exmormon Anger Toward The Lds Church.

[selek1]

What is it? How do you know that you were conned?

WM, it's your thread to steer, but to my mind, this question constitutes a derailing.

It opens the door to a flood of allegations of abuse and deceit- some substantiated, but most not- and a regurgitation on the laundry list of false, scurrilous, and often just-plain-silly accusations of Joseph Smith.

It will turn the thread away from a discussion of the nature and cause of ex-Mormon anger and into just one more "Why I Left Mormonism" and "Bash Joseph" thread.

Both are forbidden in the rules.

Anger should be based on fact and not speculation.

I agree- but humans (a category which includes most ex-Mormons) are only rationale creatures when they choose to be- and most of us not even then . Edited August 19, 2012 by selek1

[noel00]

I think we exmormons once we get over the initial anger still like to study LDS history etc because it was once a huge part of our lives. I love history and so have been reading biographies of Jefferson (Brodie and Annette Gordon-Reed), Smith (Bushman, Brodie and Vogel) and Ellen G White (Numbers). People get hot under the collar in respect to Jefferson and Sally Hemmings. I recently read Quinn's response to Hales work on polygamy and polyandry. Fascinating stuff.

[Deborah]

This is true up to a point. Did you really choose to believe or did you receive a spiritual experience that you couldn't deny?

I chose to believe the spiritual confirmation I received but the more I have studied and the more that comes out (ie The Joseph Smith Papers) the more my testimony is confirmed by fact. But because of the spiritual confirmation it would take a lot of rationalization to convince myself it was something else. And btw, I didn't have a testimony of Joseph Smith when I joined. I knew the church was true and what I had been searching for. My testimony of the Prophet came much later.

[why me]

WM, it's your thread to steer, but to my mind, this question constitutes a derailing.

It opens the door to a flood of allegations of abuse and deceit- some substantiated, but most not- and a regurgitation on the laundry list of false, scurrilous, and often just-plain-silly accusations of Joseph Smith.

.

I think that I should explain. If someone says that Joseph Smith conned them that would imply as the poster implied that it was all fake: first vision, angel and book or mormon. And yet, I see no proof of a con. There must be evidence and yet, I see no evidence to support such a claim. This is why I call such anger a speculative emotion.

Edited August 19, 2012 by why me

[robuchan]

I think that I should explain. If someone says that Joseph Smith conned them that would imply as the poster implied that it was all fake: first vision, angel and book or mormon. And yet, I see no proof of a con. There must be evidence and yet, I see no evidence to support such a claim. This is why I call such anger a speculative emotion.

Let's just say I believe that it is fact that can be proven or at least supported with masses amounts of evidence. But I agree that this is not the time to discuss it. It's the same stuff that gets regurgitated over and over.

[why me]

I chose to believe the spiritual confirmation I received but the more I have studied and the more that comes out (ie The Joseph Smith Papers) the more my testimony is confirmed by fact. But because of the spiritual confirmation it would take a lot of rationalization to convince myself it was something else.

This my feeling too. My spiritual confirmation was very strong. But this brings up another point for exmormon anger: the denial of the spiritual confirmation and the rationalizations that come with it. I have this feeling that exmormons who are angry need to belong to an angry crowd who also based their decisions on a speculative anger emotion.

[robuchan]

I have this feeling that exmormons who are angry need to belong to an angry crowd who also based their decisions on a speculative anger emotion.

This is a really odd theory.

[KevinG]

Misery loves company.

[Libs]

Most angry ex-mormons are simply going through the stages of grief. Leaving the church can be a huge loss, in many ways, and it's perfectly natural to go through stages of having strong feelings about it. Shock, anger, fear, depression...most go through all of those stages, before returning to more stable ground (and it can takes years to get through it, depending on circumstances)..

[robuchan]

I ask you for a million dollars for a charity. You give it to me, and find out I stole the money. You're angry.

Your parents tell you pizza is of the devil. You finally realize at age 50 it's not, you try it, and it's delicious. You're angry.

You grow up in a small town and the public schooling for K-12 all taught you the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth. You go off in the world and realize everything you believe about the world is false. You're angry.

Anger to some degree in any of these hypo's would be understandable. Hopefully the person in each hypo would be able to make sense of things and not let the anger consume them, but certainly it would be understandable. I don't think it would be presumed that any of them have a psychological need to hate and join with others that hate.

[why me]

This is a really odd theory.

Here is my premise: there must be proof of a fraud based on conclusive evidence. It cannot be based on speculation. Now I can understand anger if it were proven that Joseph lied about the book of mormon and there was evidence to support that claim. But without evidence, the anger can only be based on speculation or a faith that he conned people with the book of mormon. But then we must deal with the 11 witnesses too. Since they would have experienced a first hand con and were the first victims of the con.

And yet, they never came to a realization that they were conned; in fact, they still claimed their spiritual experience on their deathbeds.

[KevinG]

Some people seem to revel in being stuck in stage 2 of the Kübler-Ross model and invest heavily in convincing themselves it is justified.

Edited August 19, 2012 by KevinG

[why me]

Most angry ex-mormons are simply going through the stages of grief. Leaving the church can be a huge loss, in many ways, and it's perfectly natural to go through stages of having strong feelings about it. Shock, anger, fear, depression...most go through all of those stages, before returning to more stable ground (and it can takes years to get through it, depending on circumstances)..

And yet what are all these feelings based on? Speculation? Or proof?..that is the church is false.

[selek1]

I think that I should explain. If someone says that Joseph Smith conned them that would imply as the poster implied that it was all fake: first vision, angel and book or mormon. And yet, I see no proof of a con. There must be evidence and yet, I see no evidence to support such a claim. This is why I call such anger a speculative emotion.

And I agree with you- I simply wished to warn you about the possible unintended consequences of your question.

This is a really odd theory.

Which does nothing to speak to its accuracy or falsity.

"Odd" does not automagically equate to "wrong".

Most angry ex-mormons are simply going through the stages of grief.

"Most"- I will agree with. A select few, however, have taken to homesteading there and are now selling out parcels and even laying out plots for a shopping mall.

Leaving the church can be a huge loss, in many ways, and it's perfectly natural to go through stages of having strong feelings about it. Shock, anger, fear, depression...most go through all of those stages, before returning to more stable ground (and it can takes years to get through it, depending on circumstances)..

I agree- and I wish them well.

Those who seek to capitalize on their grief and anger are, IMO, a different breed of jackal all together.

Edited August 19, 2012 by selek1

[Libs]

And yet what are all these feelings based on? Speculation? Or proof?..that is the church is false.

It's different for everyone, although, there are some fairly common concerns that cause people to leave.

I think people believe those things are true, or likely true, or they wouldn't leave.

Edited August 19, 2012 by Libs

[why me]

I ask you for a million dollars for a charity. You give it to me, and find out I stole the money. You're angry.

Your parents tell you pizza is of the devil. You finally realize at age 50 it's not, you try it, and it's delicious. You're angry.

You grow up in a small town and the public schooling for K-12 all taught you the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth. You go off in the world and realize everything you believe about the world is false. You're angry.

All the above seems to be based on fact or proof. I don't see it with the book of mormon. Now if a manuscript was produced with Joseph revisions. Well, anger would be warranted. But...without proof I see no reason for anger. I just see room for believing in a speculation that it was all a con. But way anger over speculation?

[KevinG]

...because its a great idea to leave your religion over rumors of a long dead guy sleeping with the long dead wife of another long dead guy.

(I wonder how many people left Israel after hearing the news that Moses was a murderer on the lam?)

Edited August 19, 2012 by KevinG

[blackstrap]

Perhaps robuchan and others feel anger is because they have received a spiritual witness that Joseph was a con man and the teachings of the church are not correct.They feel a righteous anger .

[Alvino]

Why are exmormons angry at the lds church?

I find it more of a funny little thing rather than something to get angry about but I can imagine that there are people that had Mormons, motivated by their believes, do them serious emotional harm. That could lead to someone being angry at the Church for having motivated these people to do such things that they probably wouldn't otherwise do. Again, not me but I can understand it.

Now I can understand the anger if the lds church were proven false. For example, if a written manuscript were discovered belonging to Joseph Smith complete with rough drafts for the book of mormon. Or if a confessional letter from Joseph Smith was discovered detailing the fraud and why he did it. But no such documents have been found.

Friend, nothing but formal systems use seriously rigorous proofs. Scientific reasoning is based on induction, not deduction. Nothing about the physical world is proven either true or false but that doesn't mean you would be terribly irrational and probably mentally challenged if you jumped out the window thinking that there is no evidence (that's the word you should be using) that you will die if you jump.

There is no proof that the lds church is false. It is all speculation.

There's plenty of evidence that the LDS Church is false because there is plenty of evidence that God doesn't exist, that evolution is correct, etc etc etc. There's also very bad evidence that the Church is true. This is what we would expect from a false hypothesis about the world. If we say something is true but isn't, we would expect it to be very bad evidence supporting it, and, given enough background knowledge, lots of evidence making it implausible (not "proving it" false). That certainly is not "all speculation". Do you know what critical thinking is? Yeah, that's not all speculation. Serious, critical and rigorous thinking isn't just speculation.

[why me]

Perhaps robuchan and others feel anger is because they have received a spiritual witness that Joseph was a con man and the teachings of the church are not correct.They feel a righteous anger .

Then this would imply a speculative faith that Joseph was a con artist. But not fact. Why should such faith cause anger?

[Calm]

Emma must have spent many a night alone in her bed.

And most of them were likely a result of apostates and others attempting to attack Joseph Smith in various ways, including having him thrown in jail on a variety of charges.

And of course the most enduring separation between them was due to his being murdered. The anger and pain that must have caused her was likely much, much more than any uncertainty of who he was with and why due to their involvement with plural marriage.

[why me]

There's plenty of evidence that the LDS Church is false because there is plenty of evidence that God doesn't exist, that evolution is correct, etc etc etc. There's also very bad evidence that the Church is true. This is what we would expect from a false hypothesis about the world. If we say something is true but isn't, we would expect it to be very bad evidence supporting it, and, given enough background knowledge, lots of evidence making it implausible (not "proving it" false). That certainly is not "all speculation". Do you know what critical thinking is? Yeah, that's not all speculation. Serious, critical and rigorous thinking isn't just speculation.

Has Richard Dawkins proved that god doesn't exist? I don't think so. One can argue that there is plenty of evidence that god exists. But again it all takes faith regardless what side of the coin a person is on.

The anger shown the lds church by some exmormons is not based on evolution but on a belief that Joseph Smith was a con artist. Yet, there is no proof that he was nor does it explain how he conned 11 people into it and to such an extent that they affirmed their experience over and over again.

[Calm]

Then this would imply a speculative faith that Joseph was a con artist. But not fact. Why should such faith cause anger?

Emotion is what gives something value to an individual, not its factual 'weight'. If someone's faith had a great deal of emotional value for them, then that emotion isn't likely to just 'go away' but be invested into something else, whether it is a new cause or the opposite of the former belief. It is interesting to listen to exmormons who one was familiar with prior to their deconversion, often they sound exactly the same in everything save the target of their comments.

[robuchan]

Then this would imply a speculative faith that Joseph was a con artist. But not fact. Why should such faith cause anger?

It's a fact to me not speculative faith. Rethink your assumptions with that in mind.

[selek1]

...I can imagine that there are people that had Mormons, motivated by their believes, do them serious emotional harm. That could lead to someone being angry at the Church for having motivated these people to do such things that they probably wouldn't otherwise do. Again, not me but I can understand it.

In other words, it didn't happen to you, you have no first hand knowledge of it happening, and have zero evidence that the hypothetical is an exclusively Mormon phenomenon- but felt it necessary to throw out an unfounded allegation in order to set the proper tone for the rest of your attack.

Got it. It makes perfect sense now.

Nothing about the physical world is proven either true or false but that doesn't mean you would be terribly irrational and probably mentally challenged if you jumped out the window thinking that there is no evidence (that's the word you should be using) that you will die if you jump.

You might want to diagram that sentence and then edit it to convey what you really meant.

I, personally, consider jumping out of a window in the belief you can fly to be prima facia evidence of an irrational act- but then again, I wear my underwear under my clothes. YMMV.

There's plenty of evidence that the LDS Church is false because there is plenty of evidence that God doesn't exist, that evolution is correct, etc etc etc. There's also very bad evidence that the Church is true.

Alvino, there is a certain elegance in the ideological smugglings which you insert into your posts- almost the same degree of elegance one finds in a kindergartner finger-painting with one hand and eating paste with the other.

The first, of course, is your substitution of "evidence" for "proof". No one here denies that there is evidence to support the allegation that the LDS Church is not what it claims to be.

We cheerfully acknowledge that fact.

"Proof", however, is a higher- and far more subjective- standard.

By attempting this ideological sleight-of-hand, you are not addressing WhyMe's arguments, but are rather attempting to subtly (or blatantly, depending upon one's degree of finesse) attempting to shift the ground to your own rhetorical advantage- which leads us to your second ideological smuggling:

There's plenty of evidence that the LDS Church is false

There's also very bad evidence that the Church is true

Note the qualifiers.

Evidence suggesting that the Church is false is unmodified- therefore "value neutral".

Evidence suggesting that the Church is true, on the other hand, is "bad"- and therefore to be discounted.

The propaganda technique on display is sound- and has been used extensively throughout history- but the execution here is so clumsy, so sloppy that I am almost embarrassed for you.

Almost.

In this instance, your ideological smuggling is an attempt to poison the well, and to discredit and dismiss evidence in favor of the Church without actually examining it.

Thus, your ideological smuggling is an appeal to prejudice, not to reason.

It is an attempt to incite ignorance, not understanding.

Do you know what critical thinking is? Yeah, that's not all speculation. Serious, critical and rigorous thinking isn't just speculation.

Given the behavior of critics such as yourself, I would postulate that there are two forms of "critical thinking":

The first is a rigorous, reasoned, and (theoretically) unbiased examination of all of the available facts and evidence free from prejudgements, preconditions, and prior conclusions. This is the standard to which free-thinkers and rationalists aspire.

The second is what we see in your post: a smug, supercillious act of condescension and derision designed to bolster a false sense of intellectual superiority based on a priori reasoning and dishonest rhetoric.

You are out of the thread.