July Conference On Faith Crisis--Bushman And The Givens

[Analytics]

Because I know how eloquent Terryl Givens is (I assume his wife is as well) I can only conclude that Givens's failure to move their hearers who have fallen away from the Church is due largely to close-mindedness on the part of those hearers.

Eloquence and persuasiveness are two different things. Close-mindedness and decisiveness are too.

If exMormons being unwavering in their decision to leave the church is evidence that they are close-minded, is the failure of new members to remain active evidence that they are open-minded?

[Scott Lloyd]

Eloquence and persuasiveness are two different things. Close-mindedness and decisiveness are too.

If exMormons being unwavering in their decision to leave the church is evidence that they are close-minded, is the failure of new members to remain active evidence that they are open-minded?

If you're saying it's a two-way street, I agree.

Faithful members who don't waver cannot be dismissed a priori as closed-minded any more than apostates who don't waver can be dismissed a priori as closed-minded.

Edited to add: I don't altogether accept your assertions. Persuasiveness can be a characteristic of eloquence. And one's decisiveness can be a function of his closed-mindedness. One who says, "My mind is made up; don't confuse me with facts" is being very decisive.

Edited July 3, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[cinepro]

So did anyone go to this? How was it?

[canard78]

I didn't. But someone's notes are available here:

http://rationalfaiths.com/bushman-babies-bath-water/

[jim_mason]

Shouldn't the focus be helping others feel and learn from the Spirit rather than relying on "eloquence" of man?

[jim_mason]

I appreciate their efforts, and hopefully it leads people to testimony of the Gospel.

[Robert F. Smith]

I find that curious. It is as though, having fallen away, they become as dogmatic and intransigent as antagonists consider faithful Church members to be.

Didn't they reject their former faith supposedly because they became more open-minded? What happened? Did their minds slam shut again after they left the fold?

The rigid and brittle nature of their internal belief system led to their apostasy, and remains part of their character ever after. Grace and tolerance were never part of their lives to begin with.

[jim_mason]

The rigid and brittle nature of their internal belief system led to their apostasy, and remains part of their character ever after. Grace and tolerance were never part of their lives to begin with.

And by what authority do you judge people you may have never known nor will know?

[Robert F. Smith]

And by what authority do you judge people you may have never known nor will know?

I have met a great many apostates in my life and have spent years in their company (some of them can be delightful people), and have read the words of many more, and rigidity and brittleness are the primary characteristics which I found in common among them. I am sure that there are a host of other characteristics which might be discussed in that context, both emotional and intellectual, and with some profit. Moreover, it may well be true (in my opinion it often is) that rigid and brittle belief systems are passed on from generation to generation as a sort of family survival mechanism, but no longer appropriate in modern times. So this should not be a blame game, but rather an observation on the pitfalls of having very rigid and brittle belief systems which prime the pump of apostasy from a variety of otiose views -- more often than not a matter of folklore.

This is not a problem exclusive to Mormons and ex-Mormons, but pervades all manner of belief systems worldwide and through the ages. The disappointment and pain felt by a former Communist can be as harsh as it is for any ex-Mormon. In addition, we all ought to treat our former co-religionists with kindness and humanity at every turn, respecting their choices even as we understand that they may have rejected a very false version of our religion.

[Scott Lloyd]

The rigid and brittle nature of their internal belief system led to their apostasy, and remains part of their character ever after. Grace and tolerance were never part of their lives to begin with.

I have always suspected as much.

[Scott Lloyd]

And by what authority do you judge people you may have never known nor will know?

Robert F. Smith, like anyone else, has a right to form generalized opinions from observation. From what I can tell, he is more astute than most at doing so.

[canard78]

The rigid and brittle nature of their internal belief system led to their apostasy, and remains part of their character ever after. Grace and tolerance were never part of their lives to begin with.

That's an unfair generalisation Robert. For what it's worth, my wife is the category of people you're discussing and your description doesn't fit. In many cases it was a willingness to open their mind that lead them to consider other possibilities and move away from church activity/leave entirely.

Character attacks are unbecoming.

[Calm]

I didn't read Robert as saying all exmormons being in this way, but rather the ones Scott described as dogmatic, self described as such by themselves before their loss of belief and observed to be that way by the way they behave afterwards....(I generally think of this type as "apostates" because they seem so much to define themselves by what they once were and now are not in contrast to those who are exmembers but still remain involved in the faith due to loved ones or simple...or even complex interest.)

It makes sense that people don't change personality or the way they approach life with a change of religion, but much like love...when one falls out of it, one often reacts against the formerly loved one with the same intensity only in a negative way.

Edited July 10, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

That's an unfair generalisation Robert. For what it's worth, my wife is the category of people you're discussing and your description doesn't fit. In many cases it was a willingness to open their mind that lead them to consider other possibilities and move away from church activity/leave entirely.

Exmormons tend to exist on a continuum just like members do. Kevin Christensen has discussed the paradigms we use to process our beliefs a number of times on the board. My memory says you were in at least one of those and found the theory appealing. My memory says that Robert has responded positively to Kevin's material as well. He can of course clarify his position himself, especially if I have misremembered.

It is my opinion that in crisis people don't exhibit new behaviour so much as fall back on old habits, such as desiring favourite comfort foods, familiar surroundings and people, etc. around them. This behaviour is obvious in young children who may regress to more infantile behaviour for a time due to a trauma. In crisis one is so overwhelmed with emotion and is putting so much effort into mental and emotional survival, one lacks the control needed to change. And as we have been told quite often, there are few crisis that are as dramatic as one's loss of faith for someone who has been a devout believer. Thus it makes psychological sense that their behaviour postbelief is a parallel to their behaviour while a believer, at least for as long as it takes them to move past the crisis...which for someone whose typical behaviour tends to be based on a black and white paradigm can take longer than someone who is more flexible in their approach to the world around them, who is comfortable with ambiguity, etc. OTOH, from what I've seen for someone who is used to ambiguity, their transition, while still very emotionally painful, tends to be less bumpy and is processed more internally and quickly even when as intense an experience as for a dogmatic thinker.

Edited July 10, 2013 by calmoriah

[cesc101]

I didn't. But someone's notes are available here:

http://rationalfaiths.com/bushman-babies-bath-water/

This was awesome.

Thanks!

[noel00]

I have always thought of researching a paper on exit stories from various faiths. Being an ex-JW you are shunned by their members. You can be a member of the Greek Orthodox church and never attend church and yet if you leave its considered a bad reflection on the family. My sister married a white Russian. She told mr that the Russian Orthodox church was so much part of the culture, that they considered religions that came from the West seeking converts was an intrusion on their culture. I think apostasy from Islam is also serious resulting in death in some countries. When I was growing up, one of my older brothers married a girl from a another Lutheran synod (more liberal) which was consider almost as bad as leaving church altogether.

So not only have ex-mormons not only been seen as leaving the church for an excuse to sin or cannot live the standards, now it's because they were too rigid thinking.

But now things are more exciting. You can follow the debates and up put with the condescending attitudes of some Mormons and cringe at the aggressive tone used by some ex-Mormons.

[Scott Lloyd]

That's an unfair generalisation Robert. For what it's worth, my wife is the category of people you're discussing and your description doesn't fit. In many cases it was a willingness to open their mind that lead them to consider other possibilities and move away from church activity/leave entirely.

Character attacks are unbecoming.

It was you, not Robert F. Smith, who brought up your wife. If she doesn't fit the conditions described, fine. Doesn't mean no one else does.

[Scott Lloyd]

So not only have ex-mormons not only been seen as leaving the church for an excuse to sin or cannot live the standards, now it's because they were too rigid thinking.

It is just as fallacious to assume that none or few ex-Mormons fit these descriptions as it is to assume that all of them do.

Edited July 12, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

It is just as fallacious to assume that no one or few ex-Mormons fit these descriptions as it is to assume that all of them do.

Very true. There are plenty of LDS who remain devout believers who are also rigid thinkers, so it's not as if those of us who are making this kind of observation from time to time of someone (not everyone) who leaves automatically assume that being a rigid thinker leads to leaving the Church, just that rigid thinkers that do leave the Church tend to stay rigid thinkers...at least for some time afterwards. As I said before, most people don't change in a crisis, though the longterm effect of a crisis may have an effect that changes them eventually, sometimes for the better, sometimes not. I've seen some move into a more confident state and some into a more fearful and withdrawn state. People are all over the map in variety, thank goodness. Some of the best and kindest people I know are rigid thinkers and are better Saints in my opinion than some of the more flexible thinkers, even if the rigid thinkers aren't LDS. And some of the best and kindest people I know are flexible thinkers, in and out of my faith.

Being rigid or flexible in thinking doesn't have much to do from what I've seen with the quality of person one can be, just with how one reacts to situations.

Edited July 12, 2013 by calmoriah

[canard78]

It was you, not Robert F. Smith, who brought up your wife. If she doesn't fit the conditions described, fine. Doesn't mean no one else does.

'Why me' had said:

The Givens' were in the UK giving presentations around the country. I think that it is great that they are giving presentations to members. In the UK it was to the general membership. However, from what I could tell, they had limited impact on those who left the church or for those who became non-involved after reading lds history from critic sites.

You replied:

I find that curious. It is as though, having fallen away, they become as dogmatic and intransigent as antagonists consider faithful Church members to be.

Didn't they reject their former faith supposedly because they became more open-minded? What happened? Did their minds slam shut again after they left the fold?

Robert replied:

The rigid and brittle nature of their internal belief system led to their apostasy, and remains part of their character ever after. Grace and tolerance were never part of their lives to begin with.

You also later said:

Because I know how eloquent Terryl Givens is (I assume his wife is as well) I can only conclude that Givens's failure to move their hearers who have fallen away from the Church is due largely to close-mindedness on the part of those hearers.

The whole exchange, which Robert's comment is a part of, is based on why me's initial observation about "those who left the church" and "those who became non-involved after reading lds history from critic sites." At no point do you take the topic on to a different group of people than those mentioned by why me.

You 'conclude' - but based on your assumptions. Why can't someone leave the church because they've found something better? Instead you presume that "those who (have) left the church" become "dogmatic and intransigent" and are unmoved by Givens "due largely to close-mindednes."

You're right that I brought my wife into the conversation, but only because she (along with many other friends and family I know) fits the description in why me's post of having left the church and I disagreed with your/Robert's assumptions and criticisms.

[Scott Lloyd]

'Why me' had said:

You replied:

Robert replied:

You also later said:

The whole exchange, which Robert's comment is a part of, is based on why me's initial observation about "those who left the church" and "those who became non-involved after reading lds history from critic sites." At no point do you take the topic on to a different group of people than those mentioned by why me.

You 'conclude' - but based on your assumptions. Why can't someone leave the church because they've found something better? Instead you presume that "those who (have) left the church" become "dogmatic and intransigent" and are unmoved by Givens "due largely to close-mindednes."

You're right that I brought my wife into the conversation, but only because she (along with many other friends and family I know) fits the description in why me's post of having left the church and I disagreed with your/Robert's assumptions and criticisms.

I think a reasonable reader will infer from my and Robert Smith's exchange that we were not talking universally about each and every person who ever left the Church or who heard the Givens's presentations and were unmoved by them. It would be impossible to make such an assessment without knowing each such person intimately.

Nevertheless, I maintain that it is possible to draw a valid generalization from observation and experience and I trust Robert Smith's intellectual acumen and wisdom in doing that.

And for my part, all I did was to raise questions about whether someone who supposedly has become more open-minded after having been released from the insidious and mind-numbing clutches of Mormonism, is really all that open-minded even now. I still say it's a valid question. Call me skeptical.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[canard78]

I think a reasonable reader will infer from my and Robert Smith's exchange that we were not talking universally about each and every person who ever left the Church or who heard the Givens's presentations and were unmoved by them. It would be impossible to make such an assessment without knowing each such person intimately.

Exactly. You don't know. And you did not make any clarification. But apparently I'm unreasonable for not being able to know what you didn't say.

Nevertheless, I maintain that it is possible to draw a valid generalization from observation and experience and I trust Robert Smith's intellectual acumen and wisdom in doing that.

And for my part, all I did was to raise questions about whether someone who supposedly has become more open-minded after having been released from the insidious and mind-numbing clutches of Mormonism, is really all that open-minded even now. I still say it's a valid question. Call me skeptical.

So it's "impossible to know" for individuals, but you're happy to draw a general conclusion for a group?

Or are you drawing no conclusion at all? You now seem to be asking a question whereas before you were drawing a conclusion about their motives and attitudes.

I suppose your hobby of apologetics means that you must interact with ex-Mormons who appear close-minded to you. I would suggest that the group you interact with represents a very narrow slice of those who leave the church.

[jim_mason]

I am skeptical that we can make assumptions about people we know absolutely nothing about, save only that a internet poster made a claim about a group of people who the poster likely knows nothing about. Perhaps whyme could clarify how she/he reached the conclusion about the people in England. I did not read where whyme claimed those people claimed to be open minded nor did I read that whyme made any claim as why the individuals in England are no longer as involved with the Church as they may previously had been.