Fair Panel On Family Members Who Leave

[Mystery Meat]

You did not address my post, but I can see I worded it poorly. What I should have said:

 

 

Obviously there is no perfect mold in the Church and everyone has problems. This just illustrates my point though. If everyone has problems: "single, gay, childless, sick, addicted, poor, arrogant, not a perfect parent (ie, have kids that fit any of the above)" aren't these problems something that will be a thorn in the flesh for them? Won't these things make people question their faith? For some, after study and thought and prayer, these things in the end give them greater faith. For others, after study and thought and prayer,people conclude that their faith was misplaced. Under your interpretation it seems like (correct me if I'm wrong), that you would say they left not because they studied and determined that their faith was misplaced, but because of the thing that caused them to question in the first place. Is that fair?

 

I ask because I suspect that most of those that convert to the Church (especially from my experience), do so in a similar fashion (after dealing with a question that forced them to reexamine their old life view, they find their old faith inadequate and convert to a new faith). How would describe their faith transition into the Church? Is it a pursuit of truth?

 

I think your analysis is fair. I tried to imply as much when I said I probably do the exact opposite thing they do. Perhaps, we are all guilty of cognitive dissonance (I hate that term mostly because the way doubters have defined it to be: "the evidence of things hoped for that aren't seen").

[Mystery Meat]

Excellent!  This thread is moving too fast for me to comment, but I was going to write something similar (however you did it much better).  It often takes a life changing event, or even being offended for someone to even consider that not everything they believed about the church is true.  You can show some members reams of data proving death existed before 6,000 years ago, problems with the BoA, positive evidence for SSM, but they won't even consider it because they are happy where they are at - there is no reason or benefit to questions the status quo.  However, once the chink in their armor is exposed, they are opened to new realities and are able to examine issues with a critical eye.

 

I am not sure I agree with you use of the phrase "new realities" but lets not quibble over small stuff. Otherwise I agree with the spirit of your post.

[Scott Lloyd]

I left because I concluded that the evidence was overwhelming in the negative for the church. Obviously, if I believed the arguments in favor of the church were persuasive, I would have stayed. That does not mean that I wanted the evidence to go that way; I desperately wanted it to work, and it just didn't for me. As I said, I respect those who have reached the opposite conclusion.

 

I don't think it's automatic, but from what I have seen, most people without a vested interest in accepting apologetic evidence for any religion don't find it particularly convincing. IMO, most apologetic arguments are aimed at people who want to believe.

But a fair-minded individual will reject attacks that are not well-reasoned, well-documented or accurate. In other words, they will accept defenses against such spurious argumentation. Again, apologetics means defense.

 

I can accept a good defense against an attack on another's religious faith without having my own faith in any way diminished.

[Scott Lloyd]

I left because I concluded that the evidence was overwhelming in the negative for the church.

And by the way, that brings us back to my initial question on this thread: Why should FairMormon give a platform at its conference to one who has concluded -- and is immovable in his conclusion -- that "the evidence [is] overwhelming in the negative for the Church"? The very notion seems to contravene FairMormon's raison d'etre.

Edited June 2, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Senator]

And by the way, that brings us back to my initial question on this thread: Why should FairMormon give a platform at its conference to one who has concluded -- and is immovable in his conclusion -- that "the evidence [is] overwhelming in the negative for the Church"? The very notion seems to contravene FairMormon's raison d'etre.

 

Because, as the missionaries do, they'll be able to role play how to "treat" them.

[frank_jessop]

And by the way, that brings us back to my initial question on this thread: Why should FairMormon give a platform at its conference to one who has concluded -- and is immovable in his conclusion -- that "the evidence [is] overwhelming in the negative for the Church"? The very notion seems to contravene FairMormon's raison d'etre.

Do you realize the purpose of the panel has been stated? The panel "is to discuss how we interact with and treat loved ones who reject the Church, and will feature members who have had family members leave." (Wiki Wonka post 77 in this thread)

Given the purpose of the panel, an ex-Mormon who has maintained family ties - due in part to the efforts of the believing family member - would not contravene the raison d'etre of the panel or of FairMormon.

Edited June 2, 2014 by frank_jessop

[Scott Lloyd]

Do you realize the purpose of the panel has been stated? The panel "is to discuss how we interact with and treat loved ones who reject the Church, and will feature members who have had family members leave." (Wiki Wonka post 77

Given the purpose of the panel, an ex-Mormon who has maintained family ties - due in part to the efforts of the believing family member - would not contravene the raison d'etre of the panel or of FairMormon.

I'm aware of the stated purpose. I believe that purpose can be accomplished without putting ex-Mormons on the panel, especially those who have dismissed out-of-hand anything in favor of the truthfulness of Mormonism or who have declared -- as John just did here -- that the evidence is "overwhelming in the negative."

Edited June 2, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I think your analysis is fair. I tried to imply as much when I said I probably do the exact opposite thing they do. Perhaps, we are all guilty of cognitive dissonance (I hate that term mostly because the way doubters have defined it to be: "the evidence of things hoped for that aren't seen").

Which is why I think it is beneficial to give people the benefit of the doubt and let them speak for themselves. While the thorn in the flesh may have started them down the path to a [new/different/no] faith (again both for people joining the church and leaving the church), it is unfair to say that they changed because of the thorn unless that is how they describe themselves. 

[Mystery Meat]

Which is why I think it is beneficial to give people the benefit of the doubt and let them speak for themselves. While the thorn in the flesh may have started them down the path to a [new/different/no] faith (again both for people joining the church and leaving the church), it is unfair to say that they changed because of the thorn unless that is how they describe themselves. 

 

As I said before, I see no value in telling my sister or others like her I know that the only reason she left is because of the thorns in the flesh (good usage of that phrase by the way). That is just looking for a fight. I love her and others and show them that by my actions. It doesn't change my sincere (and fervant) belief that she would still be a faithful member of the Church if the thorn had been removed.

 

As you noted everyone has thorns, but not everyone lets them affect faith and testimony.

[jkwilliams]

I'm aware of the stated purpose. I believe that purpose can be accomplished without putting ex-Mormons on the panel, especially those who have dismissed out-of-hand anything in favor of the truthfulness of Mormonism or who have declared -- as John just did here -- that the evidence is "overwhelming in the negative."

IMO, whether or not I think the evidence points in a particular direction does not have anything to do with my interest in seeing families avoid the kind of pain I see all the time when someone leaves the church. If we think that one's perspective on the truth of the church disqualifies them from having something positive to say about helping families, I think maybe the panel would be doomed from the start.

[jkwilliams]

As I said before, I see no value in telling my sister or others like her I know that the only reason she left is because of the thorns in the flesh (good usage of that phrase by the way). That is just looking for a fight. I love her and others and show them that by my actions. It doesn't change my sincere (and fervant) belief that she would still be a faithful member of the Church if the thorn had been removed.

 

As you noted everyone has thorns, but not everyone lets them affect faith and testimony.

I thought your sister told you she left because of non-truth-related issues. Why would it be a problem to tell your sister what she already told you? Am I missing something?

[Mystery Meat]

I thought your sister told you she left because of non-truth-related issues. Why would it be a problem to tell your sister what she already told you? Am I missing something?

 

Because she has since changed her story (I noted that above) and in the past when I have brought up the fact she gets very angry and denies ever saying it or that it played any part in her conclusion.

[Scott Lloyd]

IMO, whether or not I think the evidence points in a particular direction does not have anything to do with my interest in seeing families avoid the kind of pain I see all the time when someone leaves the church. If we think that one's perspective on the truth of the church disqualifies them from having something positive to say about helping families, I think maybe the panel would be doomed from the start.

I don't see why it should necessarily be "doomed from the start."

 

If it be essential to have the perspective of a family member who has left the Church, perhaps a panelist could be included who had once departed but had subsequently returned in full faith and fellowship. Such a one could then provide said perspective with less danger of propounding disbeliever's propaganda from the stage at the FairMormon conference.

Edited June 2, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

Because she has since changed her story (I noted that above) and in the past when I have brought up the fact she gets very angry and denies ever saying it or that it played any part in her conclusion.

I must have missed that part. Thanks for clarifying.

[frank_jessop]

I'm aware of the stated purpose. I believe that purpose can be accomplished without putting ex-Mormons on the panel, especially those who have dismissed out-of-hand anything in favor of the truthfulness of Mormonism or who have declared -- as John just did here -- that the evidence is "overwhelming in the negative."

And what does thinking the evidence "overwhelming in the negative" have to do with an ex-Mormon affirming those things which helped to maintain family ties? The two (panel discussion on family relations and truth claims of the Church) seem unrelated. Should I take a cynical view that an ex-Mormon can not provide positive or affirming insight into maintaining family relations between believers and non-believers.

Is your it your position that an ex-Mormon should not be permitted speak about any subject - even a subject unrelated to the truth claims of the Church - at a FairMormon conference?

[jkwilliams]

I don't see why it should necessarily be "doomed from the start."

 

If it be essential to have the perspective of one who had left the Church, perhaps a panelist could be included who had once departed but had subsequently returned in full faith and fellowship. Such a one could then provide said perspective with less danger of propounding disbeliever's propaganda from the stage at the FairMormon conference.

I am mystified as to why you assume an ex-Mormon would abuse an invitation like that. Do you really think we're that evil and self-serving? If so, I am very sorry to hear that.

[Scott Lloyd]

I am mystified as to why you assume an ex-Mormon would abuse an invitation like that. Do you really think we're that evil and self-serving? If so, I am very sorry to hear that.

One might do so without even realizing or understanding or agreeing that he had done anything inappropriate, especially if he had reached the staunch conclusion that "the evidence against the Church is overwhelming in the negative." He might not agree that it is self-serving but, on the contrary, altruistic. He might feel he is rendering a public service, serving the cause of truth (as he sees it), speaking up for his ideals.

 

He could be oh so polite about doing so, but in the end, it would still be at cross purposes with the FairMormon organization (as I perceive its mission).

 

What indispensable role do you see that must be played on the panel by an unbelieving, ex-Mormon that could not be accomplished just as well by what I suggested: one who had left the Church but had subsequently returned and had regained his faith and belief?

Edited June 2, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

One might do so without even realizing or understanding or agreeing that he had done anything inappropriate, especially if he had reached the staunch conclusion that "the evidence against the Church is overwhelming in the negative." He might feel he is just rendering a public service, serving the cause of truth (as he sees it).

 

He could be oh so polite about doing so, but in the end, it would still be at cross purposes with the FairMormon organization (as I perceive its mission).

Given your statements above, you think I would do something like that. If I were invited (and no, I do not want to be invited), I wouldn't dream of doing anything other than what I've said: try to help people to focus on relationships and common ground instead of what divides us. I can't feel offended because what you describe above is so far from anything I would do, but I do feel sorry that you have such a low opinion of me personally and people in my position.

 

What essential role do you see that must be played on the panel by an unbelieving, ex-Mormon that could not be accomplished just as well by what I suggested: one who had left the Church but had subsequently returned and had regained his faith and belief?

I actually agree with you that anyone who has left, whether or not they have returned, might offer something positive. But I can't accept your dismissal of ex-Mormons in general and me in particular as being incapable of civil behavior or respecting the expectations of such an invitation.

Edited June 2, 2014 by jkwilliams

[Scott Lloyd]

Given your statements above, you think I would do something like that. If I were invited (and no, I do not want to be invited), I wouldn't dream of doing anything other than what I've said: try to help people to focus on relationships and common ground instead of what divides us. I can't feel offended because what you describe above is so far from anything I would do, but I do feel sorry that you have such a low opinion of me personally and people in my position.

 

I actually agree with you that anyone who has left, whether or not they have returned, might offer something positive. But I can't accept your dismissal of ex-Mormons in general and me in particular as being incapable of civil behavior or respecting the expectations of such an invitation.

I already indicated several posts back that I think you are unusual. Given that, I don't see why you are taking personal offense now.

 

And definitions of "civil behavior" can differ from person to person. One might not feel he is being uncivil in refusing to be fettered by the parameters of the invitation.

 

Moreover, I can see in my minds eye the hue and cry about "censorship" and so-and-so being prohibited from speaking his mind that would ensue were one to be invited with such parameters in place.

 

As I said: fraught with problems.

Edited June 2, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

I already indicated several posts back that I think you are unusual. Given that, I don't see why you are taking personal offense now.

I'm not offended. You singled me out as someone who would not be welcome because I believe the evidence is overwhelming and would therefore be likely to abuse the invitation. If you don't believe that, you probably shouldn't have said it.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm not offended. You singled me out as someone who would not be welcome because I believe the evidence is overwhelming and would therefore be likely to abuse the invitation. If you don't believe that, you probably shouldn't have said it.

Sorry. I misread your post. Where you said, "I can't feel offended," I saw it as "I can feel offended.

 

My apologies.

[jkwilliams]

Sorry. I misread your post. Where you said, "I can't feel offended," I saw it as "I can feel offended.

 

My apologies.

I'm not offended, just surprised that you said what you did.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm not offended, just surprised that you said what you did.

I think I've stated my reasoning clearly.

[jkwilliams]

I think I've stated my reasoning clearly.

Yep. You think people like me are likely to attack the church if given the chance. But at least we'll try to be "nice" about it.

[MorningStar]

I've never been to a FAIR Conference or witnessed such a panel, so I wouldn't know what to expect from such a discussion.  Chances are a member would offend a panel member who is no longer a member of the church, leading to an ugly argument or perhaps the non-member panel member making what they think is a subtle comment, but isn't so subtle to everyone else.  I would be most likely to trust someone like my dad who takes very little interest in discussing the church and simply asking him what helped our family stick together despite differences in beliefs.  But then he wouldn't have an interest in being part of such a thing.    He's unusual because he never seemed to go through a phase where he was trying to figure out how to get us all to leave the church, which is what many ex-Mormons do.