Exmormon Anger Toward The Lds Church.

[selek1]

The church claims to be the true church of christ. There is no proof that it is not.

No- but there is evidence to support the contention that it is not.

As Calmoriah has pointed out, anger does not need to be justified (or even rational) in order to be genuine.

As I said earlier, we are rationale beings only when we choose to be- and often, not even then.

So, an exmormon line of argument still has no factual basis.

Too broad a brush, W-M. They might lack a conclusive basis for their line of argument, but that does not mean their reasoning is not factual (so far as it goes).

And what is wasted time? Going to church and taking part in fellowship does not seem to be a waste even after one has left the church. The church has saved many people from alcoholism, drug addiction etc.

If I were genuinely convinced that the Church were not true, I would probably genuinely begrudge the early mornings, the long hours spent as a clerk, and the thousands of hours of enjoyable pipe smoking I had foolishly deprived myself of.... Edited August 19, 2012 by selek1

[Calm]

But anger must have a source and this source should be real and not speculative.

Would be nice in an ideal world. It is not that way in reality. And it is quite possible that someone may believe they have solid grounds based on the information they have and yet still be wrong. People have even been found guilty of murder and executed and yet later it has been established they were innocent.

What is enough valid evidence is in daily life based on emotional appraisal, not on legal definitions. Insisting people live their lives using legal methodologies isn't realistic....or desirable in my view.

[Alvino]

No- but there is evidence to support the contention that it is not.

As Calmoriah has pointed out, anger does not need to be justified (or even rational) in order to be genuine.

Too broad a brush, W-M. They might lack a conclusive basis for their line of argument, but that does not mean their reasoning is not factual (so far as it goes).

If I were genuinely convinced that the Church were not true, I would probably genuinely begrudge the early mornings, the long hours spent as a clerk, and the thousands of hours of enjoyable pipe smoking I had foolishly deprived myself of....

a sensible post at last. +1

[Calm]

I cannot be angry at a friend unless I know for certainty that they did me wrong.

But whether or not what they did was actually wrong may be based on a purely emotional judgment of what you think is wrong which may be very different from what your friend thinks is wrong.

[Calm]

And what is wasted time? Going to church and taking part in fellowship does not seem to be a waste even after one has left the church.

This is an emotional judgment.

Someone else may point to the fact that they could have been using that time to get further in their career, helping out a neighbour with their yardwork, contributing at a food shelter, or just enjoying having a quiet day with the family....all very worthwhile things that they may not have had the time for because of their involvement with the Church.

[Calm]

I just wanted to ask why the standard for "unbelief" in the church is set higher (on this thread) than the standard for "belief" in the church? There is no "proof", either way, except by spiritual confirmation, which is very subjective.

It would be helpful for a specific comment because I don't see what you are referring to.

[selek1]

If you do so with all your strength and it's me, it'll hurt me for sure.

Again- this is a reasonable surmise- but not an established fact.

I have, in fact, been disagnosed with advanced, degenerative, arthritis in all the moving parts.

First, it doesn't matter. It just matters that they blame the Church for being responsible for these members acting as they did. The point is that there's a plausible way to come to hate the Church.

I agree. in point of fact.

Secondly, if person X thinks it's OK to masturbate or to have sex before marriage and they know that a young person is seriously suffering because he had sex with his girlfriend and feels terribly guilty because he thinks that's the second worst thing he could have done, then it is correct for X to say that this young man is suffering unnecessarily because of the silly puritan teachings as the Church. Whether you, selek1, think this is right or wrong doesn't matter. The point is that it would be understandable that X feels as he could.

As a caution, this is a family friendly board. While I agree with your point, you might want to tone down your examples.

No more subjective than saying it's "good evidence", is it? And this doesn't illustrate anything about why me's point at all. That a belief is held by only subjective (an idea which I find useless as is often used, to begin with) reasons doesn't mean it is false.

No- but it means that it cannot be proven either way- which was W-M's point.

[Calm]

That was directed at why me, who keeps asserting that, because there is no "proof" that the church is not true, there are no grounds for anger.

When I had hypoglycemic issues, my blood sugar used to drop at about 5 in the afternoon every day. Feeling tremendously angry, I'd look around for the reason because of course there must be a reason.

This was also just about the time my poor husband would walk through the door. I'm sure everyone can figure out what happened next. It is remarkable that we are still married and a testament to his infinite patience and longsuffering.

It was much better all around when I figured out that there was NO reason for being angry. I just was.

[Libs]

It would be helpful for a specific comment because I don't see what you are referring to.

Yeah, I realized I am not explaining myself very well.

Whyme set up the dichotomy between believers and ex-mormons, as having something to do with "proof"....that 'angry" ex-mormons shouldn't be angry, because there is no proof that the church is NOT true. It seemed like a double standard, as there is no proof that the church IS true, and yet people emote about that, all the time (in the positive) and even claim they "know" it is true. It seems he could understand the anger of ex-mormons by seeing it from the other side, if nothing else.

But, I think you approached the issue, in a much more clear and simple manner, than my brain was able to, at the moment.

Edited August 19, 2012 by Libs

[Libs]

When I had hypoglycemic issues, my blood sugar used to drop at about 5 in the afternoon every day. Feeling tremendously angry, I'd look around for the reason because of course there must be a reason.

This was also just about the time my poor husband would walk through the door. I'm sure everyone can figure out what happened next. It is remarkable that we are still married and a testament to his infinite patience and longsuffering.

It was much better all around when I figured out that there was NO reason for being angry. I just was.

Yes, exactly.

But, that's not to say that we don't sometimes have good reasons to feel angry...sometimes we do.

[Alvino]

Again- this is a reasonable surmise- but not an established fact.

I have, in fact, been disagnosed with advanced, degenerative, arthritis in all the moving parts.

Didn't say it wouldn't hurt you, too, did I?

I agree. in point of fact.

we're making progress, then.

As a caution, this is a family friendly board. While I agree with your point, you might want to tone down your examples.

Will do, sorry abut that.

No- but it means that it cannot be proven either way- which was W-M's point.

That's only if you use the word "proved" in the sense of being completely indubitable, which is NOT what science or philosophy attempt to do. Again, the word is "evidence" and the useful concept is that to which the word "evidence" refers to. There can definitely be a very strong and convincing case against Mormonism and against Atheism using relevant evidence, but it can't be proved. That is a very common mistake made by laymen unfamiliar with science. Science is inductive, not deductive.

Edited August 19, 2012 by Alvino

[robuchan]

But anger must have a source and this source should be real and not speculative. I cannot be angry at a friend unless I know for certainty that they did me wrong. I cannot base my anger on speculation of the friend. Of course, I can attempt to convince myself of the event. But still, to be angry over a speculation seems like a stretch.

You're now talking about whether or not the anger is justified, not whether or not it's a real emotion and what it's motivated from.

[yootaw]

Why me: It seems like you are more interested in telling people that they shouldn't be angry rather than trying to understand why they are.

[blackstrap]

Anger is not far removed from some behavior which can be justified by that anger. It is also reflected in a "joy" in the harm or vilification of the target of that anger. Christ's admonition to avoid being angry with another is sensible in that such anger often leads to physical violence or an attempt to do or justify harm done to others.

I recently watched a video about the hunt for Martin Boorman. I learn an interesting thing. Martin's wife hated the Catholic Church and despised Jews. While it is possible she never lifted a finger to personally inflict harm on either group, no doubt she strongly influenced her husband who could and did. Was she justified in the anger? Could she have provided evidence to demonstrate the validity of the anger? Probably. Was the human condition improved by that anger? Here's where an ugly argument might ensue!

[why me]

Why me: It seems like you are more interested in telling people that they shouldn't be angry rather than trying to understand why they are.

I am trying to undestand why the anger about something that has not been proven: Joseph Smith conned people with the book of mormon. I don't see this as a proven fact. I would think that holding back the anger until that was proven would be the way to go. But if it is over speculation or even a critic interpretation of hypotheticals I don't understand the anger. That is my point. What are they angry about? A proven fact or speculation when it comes to the book of mormon.

[Calm]

I would think that holding back the anger until that was proven would be the way to go

Do you believe one should hold back one's commitment until it was proven he was not a conman? If not, then what is the difference in your view between reserving until proven disbelief that results in anger and not reserving belief that results in commitment?

Again, most people don't operate on a legal definition of proof. They operate on a day to day definition of reasonable belief/disbelief and "reasonable" is a subjective and personal standard. robuchan believes it has been sufficient proven that JS is a conman (though he doesn't explain his rationale as it is not necessary for this discussion). You do not believe it has been sufficiently proven. Both are subjective standards.

I don't see how you can turn such a thing into an objective standard where on one side of the line it is obvious there are not sufficient facts and on the other side of the bright line it is obvious there are not sufficient facts. It is instead a gray area where some will choose to lean one way and others will the other way.

To say because it is a gray area, emotions shouldn't be involved just isn't, imo, being realistic about how people deal with judgments. After all, here we are in a grey area discussing if there should be a 'bright line' standard for 'reasonable anger' and you are having a negative reaction (though not particularly emotional, it is still a negative judgment) to those who believe that the standard for reaction (anger or not) isn't as rigid as you think it should be.

The world would probably be a kinder and quieter place if people reserved negative judgments until some strict level of evidence was demonstrated. It is rare though when dealing with humans that "proof" for some definite position is unequivocally available where no rationale for another position is tenable so people are just going to go on choosing their own subjective standard of 'enough evidence'.

Edited August 20, 2012 by calmoriah

[Helen47]

There is a section on Morehead's Musings where there are video interviews with people who left the LDS church and are seeking another. They do not seem bitter. They just find some service programs a bit different in these other churches either charismantic or sacramental.They are making a transition which suits them.

[sethpayne]

Why are exmormons angry at the lds church? 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.

There is no proof that the lds church is false. It is all speculation. Now one can be disappointed about lds history etc. But anger? And one can be disappointed about speculative evidence but anger?

Any thoughts?

It is very common for people leaving controversial social groups go through a process of creating a post-organization society. Part of that is creating a story. One which explains why they were once part of the org and now whey they are out. If I believe X today but tomorrow come to believe Y, I may be embarrassed by my one-time belief in X since Y seems so patently obvious.

For ex-mormons the biggest feelings of deceit come from the watered down correlated manuals, IMO. They feel deceived when they learn that there are multiple versions of the FV or that Joseph didn't really get the MP until June 1830. Now, this type of material has been around for ages in BYU studies and elsewhere but you average member of the Church sticks with correlated materials. Anyway, because of this perceived deception, I think going through a phase of anger is a natural part of them forming a new worldview. The only ex--mos I know who *stay* angry are those with an agenda, like Sandra Tanner. Every time see her I just want to give her a hug and say: "i's ok. you lost. the secularists are doing it for you. thank you for adding to the historical record and for showing us how not to rely on primary sources."

[Buzzard]

My admittedly limited experience is that many ex-LDS just quietly leave. But a small (at least it seems small to me) minority sure do raise a ruckus.

[Libs]

Seth, what did you mean by "the secularist are doing it for you"?

[Tacenda]

What about the tithing and time they have invested in the Church? Why can't this qualify as solicitation of resources under false pretenses in someone's view, even if they can't prove it legally?

Again you asked why someone felt anger. This is something completely different than someone attempting to prove fraud has taken place. Anger can exist for the most flimsiest of reasons.

Or the thought that any inheritance that you thought you were getting is all going to the church instead. True story, it is the case with my husband.

Edited August 20, 2012 by Tacenda

[why me]

Yeah, I realized I am not explaining myself very well.

Whyme set up the dichotomy between believers and ex-mormons, as having something to do with "proof"....that 'angry" ex-mormons shouldn't be angry, because there is no proof that the church is NOT true. It seemed like a double standard, as there is no proof that the church IS true, and yet people emote about that, all the time (in the positive) and even claim they "know" it is true. It seems he could understand the anger of ex-mormons by seeing it from the other side, if nothing else.

The problem is that anger can be a very negative emotion. To be angry week after week, month after month, year after year is certainly something that I wouldn't want for myself. Nor would I want to go through a grieving process for something that hasn't been proven to be false. But this is what some exmormons do. They have anger and they grieve about something that hasn't been proven false. Why? Now if I believe in the church, if I have faith that it is true. Of course, I do not know that it is true. I had my spiritual experience but still I cannot know that it is true because I did not have Joseph's, David's, Oliver's and Martin's experience. But I can have faith. But i have no negative anger emotion inside of me.

For an exmormon it is different. They have anger. Why? For something that they once believed in but are now disappointed in.

Edited August 20, 2012 by why me

[why me]

It is very common for people leaving controversial social groups go through a process of creating a post-organization society. Part of that is creating a story. One which explains why they were once part of the org and now whey they are out. If I believe X today but tomorrow come to believe Y, I may be embarrassed by my one-time belief in X since Y seems so patently obvious.

For ex-mormons the biggest feelings of deceit come from the watered down correlated manuals, IMO. They feel deceived when they learn that there are multiple versions of the FV or that Joseph didn't really get the MP until June 1830. Now, this type of material has been around for ages in BYU studies and elsewhere but you average member of the Church sticks with correlated materials. Anyway, because of this perceived deception, I think going through a phase of anger is a natural part of them forming a new worldview.

I can understand the anger here but certainly not for weeks and weeks. Also, regardless of this, it does't prove the church false. What it does prove is that decisions are made that i may not agree with. And i can be angry at that but not for very long. And I certainly can be in the church since the truth claims do not depend on decisions of the people who put together the manuals. They are just Utah people after all.

What I think happens is that the critics want to the exmormons to be angry and they want them to go through a process. When exmormons or doubting mormons who are leaving read critic boards it seems that they are taught to´be angry and to grieve. But why grieve over something that hasn't been proven false? Or be angry about being 'conned' by Joseph Smith? His first vision account hasn't been proven a fraud. I would think that when some of the witnesses left the church, they should be angry if they knew they were conned. But this was not their problem. They did not think of themselves conned. They left over disappointment with the prophet.

I see no anger management issues with the witnesses who left.

Edited August 20, 2012 by why me

[why me]

Sure it does. They may believe it is a fraud...that they have been defrauded...but they can't prove it. I can understand why they might be angry.

I am not saying it is a fraud or trying to prove it is a fraud...just giving a possibility for a motive and why some might be angry.

Do you see a problem with your post? I am angry that it is a fraud but i cannot prove that it is a fraud, so I am going to be angry that no one can prove it and I will leave the church because of it.

[Thinking]

Perhaps some exmormons are angry because of the condescension directed at them from some faithful LDS who say or write things like…

I do not seek to offend, but so much of what I hear from ex-Mormons is really an example of people that just need to grow up and take responsibility for their own choices.

Although it is possible to know for sure that Mormonism true, it is impossible to know for sure that it is not true.

I think that one problem for exmormons is the knowledge that proof is lacking. Thus, the anger because they must base their opinion on speculation with the hope that their opinion is correct.

The church claims to be the true church of christ. There is no proof that it is not. So, an exmormon line of argument still has no factual basis.