Anti-Mormons And "progressive" Mormons Deny Our Lived Experience

[iWriteStuff]

i've had it said to me in person several times, read it as a tactic on those 'things to say to mormons to get them to stop believing their faith' style websites that routinely crop up in American Evangelical Christian websites, and i am fairly certain i've seen it asserted here but i couldn't point to a certain post.  i have definitely had my experiences questioned by atheists (meant as a nominal label, not as a pejorative) whose worldview is such that there is no god, all arguments and experience with the divine are a priori dismissed as 'in your head.'  all this because there is clearly no god with whom one can interact.  ergo, the experience was conjured up by the believer.

 

i have never seen you personally engage in it.  but i have definitely seen and lived it.

I'd say there's very little room for sophistry when it comes to a testimony. You can't think your way to heaven.

 

You either have a testimony by way of the Spirit or you don't.

[Mars]

if teancum doesn't object to me reading his mind, i think i can see what he's getting at

 

a lot of very sure people seem to use their confidence as a means of dismissal.  since i had experience X, and you had experience Y, and mine is correct, Y is incorrect.

 

i don't agree with it, and i've seen other faithful latter-day saints do it.

 

i do think - as has been stated NUMEROUS times in threads i gravitate towards, that God interacts with people on their level and as a function of their cultural understanding of Him.  how true is it that man cannot be saved in ignorance - how can you have faith or produce it in a being you can't understand?  with words you've never heard of before?  you can't, imo.

 

this doesn't invalidate the model of revelation leading a person toward God, as teancum indicates.  all roads lead to rome if you follow the signposts directing you there.  i believe the Gospel preached by Christ and restored by Joseph Smith - "Mormonism" - to be the authoritative path.  the penitent and humble muslim will one day need to acknowledge that Allah does have a Son whose role was redemptive.  if the Muslim is an honest and sincere seeker of truth, and i have no reason to suspect otherwise, then once cultural and political tumult are silenced in the spirit world, it'll be a clear choice to accept Christ, then baptism, then confirmation, then the rest of it, culminating in the temple ordinances done by proxy.  all his righteousness (or hers!) will be counted for good.

[Mars]

I'd say there's very little room for sophistry when it comes to a testimony. You can't think your way to heaven.

 

You either have a testimony by way of the Spirit or you don't.

 

i don't follow - did i lead you to think that's what i was saying?

[iWriteStuff]

i don't follow - did i lead you to think that's what i was saying?

No, I was speaking more to your reference about others trying to dissuade you of your testimony by dissecting and dismissing your spiritual confirmations.

[Mars]

No, I was speaking more to your reference about others trying to dissuade you of your testimony by dissecting and dismissing your spiritual confirmations.

 

ah ok!  yeah i misunderstood.

 

yeah, i'm of the same opinion.  that kernel of revelation is where it all starts for me.  if someone's kernel is different or leads them down a different path, then by all means - pursue it.  who knows where it might end up... 

[thesometimesaint]

If my religion helps me have just a little better understanding of the human condition, a little more patience with others and myself. Brings me lasting joy, and happiness. What business is it of anyone else what I believe?

 

For the sake of the argument let's say that our Atheist friends are correct. After we die none of us will know any differently anyway.

[mfbukowski]

I haven't seen that on here, but may have missed it?  I do know that I haven't ever accused anyone of having heartburn when they've expressed they felt the spirit.  I would never assume to know what they felt as this is very personal. 

 

I honestly have not seen that on here, but I have seen disagreements or strong opinions stated. 

Maybe I am hyper sensitive to it, but I see it all the time.

 

For me, every time there is a discussion about BOM geography or the lack of facts about BOM archaeology, that is saying that facts should take precedence over personal religious experience.

 

Every argument about polygamy and what Joseph did or did not do, or whether or not one should leave the church over historical facts or lack thereof is stating that testimony- personal, lived experience- is less important than "facts"

 

To me that becomes the bottom line of virtually every discussion.

 

Affirming the certainty of "facts" above personal testimony- ie- "lived experience" is a denial that my lived experience has value in my determining my own path of belief.

 

How is that not the case?   Am I the only one who sees that??

[mfbukowski]

ah ok!  yeah i misunderstood.

 

yeah, i'm of the same opinion.  that kernel of revelation is where it all starts for me.  if someone's kernel is different or leads them down a different path, then by all means - pursue it.  who knows where it might end up... 

So if one disagrees with you on this- (I am not- you know I agree on this) aren't they denying your "living experience"?

 

Living experience = testimony.   Deny the validity of testimony as a way of determining truth, and you are denying living experience.   That's what I thought the thread was about

 

Don't you see that all the time around here?

[mfbukowski]

if teancum doesn't object to me reading his mind, i think i can see what he's getting at

 

a lot of very sure people seem to use their confidence as a means of dismissal.  since i had experience X, and you had experience Y, and mine is correct, Y is incorrect.

 

i don't agree with it, and i've seen other faithful latter-day saints do it.

And that is precisely what we CANNOT DO if we are to remain consistent

 

If we want the privilege of following our testimonies, we need others to do so as well and then DEAL WITH IT that truth is relative to the person in regard to this area.

 

There is no way out of it if we are going to be consistent.

[SmileyMcGee]

If you think certainty is obtainable, you are a lot more certain about certainty than I am then.

 

I just know that my best guess is better than your best guess because it is mine, and I came up with it.  

I may need to edit my previous response for clarity. I don't believe certainty is obtainable, I'm actually very uncomfortable with asserting certitude or anything close to it. 

[mfbukowski]

if teancum doesn't object to me reading his mind, i think i can see what he's getting at

 

a lot of very sure people seem to use their confidence as a means of dismissal.  since i had experience X, and you had experience Y, and mine is correct, Y is incorrect.

 

i don't agree with it, and i've seen other faithful latter-day saints do it.

 

i do think - as has been stated NUMEROUS times in threads i gravitate towards, that God interacts with people on their level and as a function of their cultural understanding of Him.  how true is it that man cannot be saved in ignorance - how can you have faith or produce it in a being you can't understand?  with words you've never heard of before?  you can't, imo.

 

this doesn't invalidate the model of revelation leading a person toward God, as teancum indicates.  all roads lead to rome if you follow the signposts directing you there.  i believe the Gospel preached by Christ and restored by Joseph Smith - "Mormonism" - to be the authoritative path.  the penitent and humble muslim will one day need to acknowledge that Allah does have a Son whose role was redemptive.  if the Muslim is an honest and sincere seeker of truth, and i have no reason to suspect otherwise, then once cultural and political tumult are silenced in the spirit world, it'll be a clear choice to accept Christ, then baptism, then confirmation, then the rest of it, culminating in the temple ordinances done by proxy.  all his righteousness (or hers!) will be counted for good.

Exactly what I think also- total agreement.

[SmileyMcGee]

I don't know of any religion that says: We know we're false, but we believe it anyway".

Is this in response to my comment? If so, I'm not sure I implied any of that. In my mind, asserting that one "knows" a religion is false is just as ridiculous as asserting that one "knows" that it is true. 

[Tacenda]

Maybe I am hyper sensitive to it, but I see it all the time.

 

For me, every time there is a discussion about BOM geography or the lack of facts about BOM archaeology, that is saying that facts should take precedence over personal religious experience.

 

Every argument about polygamy and what Joseph did or did not do, or whether or not one should leave the church over historical facts or lack thereof is stating that testimony- personal, lived experience- is less important than "facts"

 

To me that becomes the bottom line of virtually every discussion.

 

Affirming the certainty of "facts" above personal testimony- ie- "lived experience" is a denial that my lived experience has value in my determining my own path of belief.

 

How is that not the case?   Am I the only one who sees that??

I see it, I understand your point.  I've seen the LDS life at it's very best! 

 

But now that I've taken myself out somewhat, as far as VT'g and not attending Temple Night or RS Meetings etc.  I see a different life.  I've been in RS presidencies and am aware of the goal of reaching out to people like me.  But for some reason the ward is steering clear of my husband and I.  Our home teacher is the bishop, but I don't remember the last time he came.  I understand he's a busy guy, but wouldn't he want us to have visits, maybe have someone else come to our home, unless he feels we're a bad influence perhaps, he does know I'm struggling.  At first I was like "yes!", he's leaving me alone, but now I feel that I miss home teachers, we've had some great ones in the past.  Also, I don't have VT'rs any longer, since in my mind, I don't want my big mouth to recite my lack of testimony. But now I keep wondering if someone in the ward had reached out more if I'd be back to more belief again.  I don't know what rumors are being told if any, but for some reason there is nothing from anyone.  Not even my Relief Society president, you'd think she would at least call since I don't have a visiting teacher.  She is so hands off, I don't think I'm imagining it, this has been going on for a good year or so. 

 

So now I wonder if this experience is a case by case or not.  Why is the ward treating us like this?  I wish I knew.  I'm just as surprised, because I read of others that are leaving the church, but the church not leaving them.  Does it take leaving to get something, say a home teacher to visit, or a call now and again from the RS president.  I sound like such a baby, but it's lonely in a sea of TBM's, why am I so scary?  I still go to church and help a young man with special needs.  I know it's partly how I come off to people I'm sure, but I do try.  Is this happening in other wards or is it just me? 

 

I wonder if your "lived experience" would prove different if you became a fence sitter like myself?  What do you think? 

 

ETA:  Sanpitch, don't tell your brother to get in touch with my bishop!  

Edited October 12, 2015 by Tacenda

[mfbukowski]

I see it, I understand your point.  I've seen the LDS life at it's very best! 

 

But now that I've taken myself out somewhat, as far as VT'g and not attending Temple Night or RS Meetings etc.  I see a different life.  I've been in RS presidencies and am aware of the goal of reaching out to people like me.  But for some reason the ward is steering clear of my husband and I.  Our home teacher is the bishop, but I don't remember the last time he came.  I understand he's a busy guy, but wouldn't he want us to have visits, maybe have someone else come to our home, unless he feels we're a bad influence perhaps, he does know I'm struggling.  At first I was like "yes!", he's leaving me alone, but now I feel that I miss home teachers, we've had some great ones in the past.  Also, I don't have VT'rs any longer, since in my mind, I don't want my big mouth to recite my lack of testimony. But now I keep wondering if someone in the ward had reached out more if I'd be back to more belief again.  I don't know what rumors are being told if any, but for some reason there is nothing from anyone.  Not even my Relief Society president, you'd think she would at least call since I don't have a visiting teacher.  She is so hands off, I don't think I'm imagining it, this has been going on for a good year or so. 

 

So now I wonder if this experience is a case by case or not.  Why is the ward treating us like this?  I wish I knew.  I'm just as surprised, because I read of others that are leaving the church, but the church not leaving them.  Does it take leaving to get something, say a home teacher to visit, or a call now and again from the RS president.  I sound like such a baby, but it's lonely in a sea of TBM's, why am I so scary?  I still go to church and help a young man with special needs.  I know it's partly how I come off to people I'm sure, but I do try.  Is this happening in other wards or is it just me? 

 

I wonder if your "lived experience" would prove different if you became a fence sitter like myself?  What do you think? 

Wards are no longer supposed to have a "no contact list", but in the past, if someone was opposed to the church and requested not to be contacted, one would be put on the list and their wishes would be honored.

 

It was often the case that the bishop would be assigned to become the home teacher for this list, since he has the "keys" to minister to all the members of his ward and can also verify that they would like to have their records removed if that was their decision.   When I was bishop, I had such a list I inherited from the previous bishops, and I would call on those members, once or twice, but if they indicated they did not want to be contacted, often I would not carry through.

 

Maybe this is what has happened.  Perhaps people think you do not want contact.

 

I would suggest you call your bishop and tell him that you would like home teachers and visiting teachers to stop by, and I can virtually guarantee immediate results.

 

If you remain passive about it, it probably will not change, but bishops are always looking for families who might be reactivated, so you will immediately jump to the "possible reactivation" list and receive a lot of attention.

 

It's just human nature to not bother people who you think do not want to be bothered.  I would not take it personally- it's just that people don't like rejection and if they think their friendship might be rejected- even if they are totally wrong about that- they might not respond.

 

We all try to be Christlike, but all fall short.

 

Contact your bishop and I am confident that things will change!

[Tacenda]

Wards are no longer supposed to have a "no contact list", but in the past, if someone was opposed to the church and requested not to be contacted, one would be put on the list and their wishes would be honored.

 

It was often the case that the bishop would be assigned to become the home teacher for this list, since he has the "keys" to minister to all the members of his ward and can also verify that they would like to have their records removed if that was their decision.   When I was bishop, I had such a list I inherited from the previous bishops, and I would call on those members, once or twice, but if they indicated they did not want to be contacted, often I would not carry through.

 

Maybe this is what has happened.  Perhaps people think you do not want contact.

 

I would suggest you call your bishop and tell him that you would like home teachers and visiting teachers to stop by, and I can virtually guarantee immediate results.

 

If you remain passive about it, it probably will not change, but bishops are always looking for families who might be reactivated, so you will immediately jump to the "possible reactivation" list and receive a lot of attention.

 

It's just human nature to not bother people who you think do not want to be bothered.  I would not take it personally- it's just that people don't like rejection and if they think their friendship might be rejected- even if they are totally wrong about that- they might not respond.

 

We all try to be Christlike, but all fall short.

 

Contact your bishop and I am confident that things will change!

We didn't ask to not be contacted.  My husband and I go each week except if on vacation.  So we're not like that at all.  I don't know why the bishop is our HT if he isn't going to visit.  He is my neighbor across the street, so I'm sure he'll visit my husband when they're both outdoors.  But surely I'm not such a germ that the RS president can't call?  Cannot believe I'm complaining about this since most in my circumstance would welcome non contact. 

 

I really just wanted to use my circumstance to ask you a "what if" question.  Don't you think your lived experience would change if you were in my spot?  Doesn't a "lived experience" take our living it a certain way to get a sure fire testimony perhaps?  Not asking you to experiment with this, but like the bishop in a Utah ward did awhile back, going incognito as a homeless person and attending church where the members of his ward were awful to him, might make you understand my point.  I wish you could see it were you in my shoes.  I've lived your experience, seen how this happened.  But haven't lived in this experience where the ward members don't reach out like our prophets or leaders have asked. 

 

ETA:  sorry to make this personal, just take it non personally as if I'm giving an example.     

Edited October 12, 2015 by Tacenda

[mfbukowski]

We didn't ask to not be contacted.  My husband and I go each week except if on vacation.  So we're not like that at all.  I don't know why the bishop is our HT if he isn't going to visit.  He is my neighbor across the street, so I'm sure he'll visit my husband when they're both outdoors.  But surely I'm not such a germ that the RS president can't call?  Cannot believe I'm complaining about this since most in my circumstance would welcome non contact. 

 

I really just wanted to use my circumstance to ask you a "what if" question.  Don't you think your lived experience would change if you were in my spot?  Doesn't a "lived experience" take our living it a certain way to get a sure fire testimony perhaps?  Not asking you to experiment with this, but like the bishop in a Utah ward did awhile back, going incognito as a homeless person and attending church where the members of his ward were awful to him, might make you understand my point.  I wish you could see it were you in my shoes.  I've lived your experience, seen how this happened.  But haven't lived in this experience where the ward members don't reach out like our prophets or leaders have asked. 

 

ETA:  sorry to make this personal, just take it non personally as if I'm giving an example.     

No, frankly my testimony is not social at all.  My lived experience is based on my thoughts and the way I assemble my world view, and religious experiences I have had, all internal issues.  

 

Also, Mormon culture is still odd to me after 35 years of being a member.   If I were stuck on a desert isle, I would probably be fine as long as there was a supply of food and water.  I might actually enjoy it.   It is difficult to accept my home teachers when they come, but no one knows that.

 

I am social because God wants me to be, and I have a testimony of the importance of community, but it is mostly an intellectual understanding.   I lived alone for years and did not feel "lonely".

 

I am kind of a hermit naturally and actually don't like people much to be totally honest.

 

It is a major effort for me to be social, though I am good at it.   I am in sales and have learned how to deal with people, and seem to be successful at it but it is an effort.

 

Be honest with your bishop and it will change.  Stop worrying and just speak up and tell him what you have said here.

[rockpond]

I'd put it to you that the majority of the difficulty lies in the fact that their purpose in denying our experience is agenda-driven. They look to set themselves up as authorities on reality rather than accept God's wisdom. I don't think there is a middle ground because one wants God to reign in our lives and the other wants to seize control for themselves and claim all the power and glory.

 

Golly, that sounds familiar....

 

I wouldn't adopt that tactic if it was the last one left in the playbook. Let God reign, let good prevail, let Truth stand. Be the witness of the truth, but don't play into their game. The minute you do, you lose.

 

With respect to your statement that I put in bold & underline... Who is the "they" you refer to?  What do you think is their agenda?  And, how does it differ significantly from the agenda you went on to state in the rest of your response?

[Ahab]

For the exact same reason you think your experience trumps everybody else.

And I expect every other person to honestly feel the same way.

It's not as if we should believe what every person tells us. Everybody would be changing their mind all of the time to believe whatever the person they were talking to told them.

What a crazy world that would be!

[iWriteStuff]

With respect to your statement that I put in bold & underline... Who is the "they" you refer to?  What do you think is their agenda?  And, how does it differ significantly from the agenda you went on to state in the rest of your response?

They: Anti-Mormons (as per title of thread).

 

Agenda: discredit Mormon conversion, dissuade members from remaining true to their testimonies. "You can't know the truth, but I can because I am objective, logical, and more able to discern truth than you. Therefore you must heed my counsel and ignore the individual promptings of the Spirit."

 

How does that differ: one seeks for the Spirit to confirm the truth of all things; the other seeks for logic, popular opinion, subjective interpretation, or scientific fact to establish truth.

[rockpond]

They: Anti-Mormons (as per title of thread).

 

Agenda: discredit Mormon conversion, dissuade members from remaining true to their testimonies. "You can't know the truth, but I can because I am objective, logical, and more able to discern truth than you. Therefore you must heed my counsel and ignore the individual promptings of the Spirit."

 

How does that differ: one seeks for the Spirit to confirm the truth of all things; the other seeks for logic, popular opinion, subjective interpretation, or scientific fact to establish truth.

 

Okay... the thread title and OP actually referred to "anti-Mormons" and progressive Mormons, jointly.  So I wanted to understand who you were referring to.

 

Who do you know, specifically, that is saying:  "heed my counsel and ignore the individual promptings of the Spirit"?  Who is doing that?  Anyone with any credibility?

 

If your agenda is to encourage people to seek the Spirit to confirm the truth of all things, than you also need to accept that the Spirit confirms truths differently to people.  What the Spirit has confirmed as truth to you, may not be the same as what the Spirit has confirmed to me as truth.

[Calm]

"i am fairly certain i've seen it asserted here but i couldn't point to a certain post"

This type---the ones to refer dismissively to people's testimonies or beliefs---tend to be banned pretty quickly. Used to see them more, especially the EV type that would post a scripture about not trusting the heart, etc. Much less often these days.

[Jeanne]

They: Anti-Mormons (as per title of thread).

 

Agenda: discredit Mormon conversion, dissuade members from remaining true to their testimonies. "You can't know the truth, but I can because I am objective, logical, and more able to discern truth than you. Therefore you must heed my counsel and ignore the individual promptings of the Spirit."

 

How does that differ: one seeks for the Spirit to confirm the truth of all things; the other seeks for logic, popular opinion, subjective interpretation, or scientific fact to establish truth.

So glad that I am NOT one of "They",  Don't have time for any agenda.

[Maedros]

Spiritual and life experiences are indeed a tool of some to try and discredit those of others - it's quite a common human trait across the religions and non-religious divide. It is actually very annoying when someone tries to force their ideology on me because they experienced this or that or because they understand this or that in this way and then expect me to accept their view because of their knowledge; its a form of pride. The truth is that in/at one time or another we all do it, whether with our friends or family or colleagues or fellow saints and especially in many of these threads, we are guilty of hypocrisy in one way or another. When this is done by covenanted members of the church, then its even worse. In situations like that: I just stick to my 'lived experience' and the Book of Mormon and my witness from the Spirit and stand my ground. No member of this church (I believe) can discredit the experiences of another without discrediting him/herself; as for non-mormons: I use my stand-my-ground tactic and it works wonders - they end up venting and raging and shouting; sometimes seeing them react in this way gives me pleasure.

[ALarson]

as for non-mormons: I use my stand-my-ground tactic and it works wonders - they end up venting and raging and shouting; sometimes seeing them react in this way gives me pleasure.

Have you actually had someone vent, rage and shout at you over this?   Was it just someone trying to convince you to leave the church?  In my experience, I have not ever met anyone who would be so passionate or intrusive.

Edited October 13, 2015 by ALarson

[stemelbow]

Have you actually had someone vent, rage and shout at you over this?   Was it just someone trying to convince you to leave the church?  In my experience, I have not ever met anyone who would be so passionate or intrusive.

I sometimes think about how nasty some people were to me when I was a missionary. they're probably looking back on it thinking about how rude I was to them.