Why is believing in God, and having Faith...so painful to those who have none?

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

It doesn't seem to me that you understand ex-Mormons nearly enough to even ask productive questions.  

Do you really believe they are trying to multiply suffering?

Here's something your OP seems to be missing: many ex-Mormon feel much happier than they did as Mormons and they obviously want others to be free of what they perceive is the heavy and burdensome cognitive dissonance of Mormonism.

And, just to clarify because it is worth repeating: in response to the trope "ex-Mormons can leave the church but can't leave it alone:" ex-Mormons are like any other population that has left a highly controlling institution; they are subject to trauma from that experience, to a time of often painful transition before recovery, and they have just as much right as anyone to air their grievances about the LDS Church and its so-called doctrines.

Many leave the church as an act of integrity, in search of peace. Many find better lives outside the church and feel like they've become better than they once were.

Perhaps so, and thus both sides are honorably trying to convince the other that they are the happiest.  From the Mormon point of view, however, there is a cosmic purpose at stake, and a testing process which accompanies it::

Book of Abraham 3:24-26, "And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;  And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;  And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever."

[Tsuzuki]

29 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Perhaps so, and thus both sides are honorably trying to convince the other that they are the happiest.  From the Mormon point of view, however, there is a cosmic purpose at stake, and a testing process which accompanies it::

Book of Abraham 3:24-26, "And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;  And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;  And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever."

That sounds kind of like the Hunger Games.

Edited May 4, 2017 by Tsuzuki

[Meadowchik]

7 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

This sums up much of what I spoke of, and I did address the fact than many feel or claim to be happier. Did you miss this part? But this happiness for many takes on the form of attacks, not just of the Church, but those who remain. I did not demonize any for leaving, for not believing, but talked about the anger and frustration that comes out of this "peace and happiness" (both of which I referred too) that seems to cause pain because others still believe, and results in "threads and posts" that often begin gentle and kind, and then build to bad jokes and harsh comments when others do not see the Church or belief in God as they do. Your last sentence, "Many leave the Church as an act of integrity, in search of peace". This seems to suggest that those who remain lack both "integrity and peace". Also "so-called doctrines" and "controlling", is this an example of "leaving the Church alone"? I think many of your comments and terms are making my point, little or no peace, and anger towards the believing. You have ever right to "air your grievances", but how do you feel this approach will make believers happy? 

I'm gonna try again to help you understand

Double-Bind: it's when both viable choices are painful. I think and feel like I know the church is not true, and so going along with that would be agonising and a waste of my opportunities. Yet, the first forty years of my life have been formed within this Mormon paradigm, so living outside of it requires a deliberate and often difficult restructuring of a new paradigm.

Both paths are hard, but--you'd rather be at church with people who sincerely believe and aren't faking it, right?--so I choose the only path I have ever wanted, and that's to try to follow the truth.

And this is where, for you, energy is required on your part to understand me. In order for me to be honest with you, I must say that it's about integrity.  But you've got to atleast temporarily suspend or forget any implications this would have about you, and try to empathize and agree that, yes, you would want to follow the truth, too, so you understand my motives even if you don't draw the same conclusions for yourself.

So then you appreciate the fact that you can try your own parh for truth and I can try mine, and it's okay if they're different maybe even necessary that they're different because the universe is so big it would be a coincidence if all correct paths were identical.

So, in these conversations, hopefully we can set the personal judgments aside and concentrate on reasoning processes, and make discussion about the exercise of working with our experiences and understandings to arrive at more robust conclusions.

And hopefully we're all the better for it. And each one happier.

Edited May 4, 2017 by Meadowchik

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Perhaps so, and thus both sides are honorably trying to convince the other that they are the happiest.  From the Mormon point of view, however, there is a cosmic purpose at stake, and a testing process which accompanies it::

Book of Abraham 3:24-26, "And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;  And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;  And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever."

There can be a cosmic purpose in this for any of us, certainly an existential one. Outside Mormonism, humans still frequently sense purpose and meaning and are forming their experiences toward better understanding and growth.

For me, everything is more meaningful now. BTW I believe atheists sincere who say this life is exceedingly precious to them as the only one they know they'll ever have.

[Robert F. Smith]

57 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

There can be a cosmic purpose in this for any of us, certainly an existential one. Outside Mormonism, humans still frequently sense purpose and meaning and are forming their experiences toward better understanding and growth.

For me, everything is more meaningful now. BTW I believe atheists sincere who say this life is exceedingly precious to them as the only one they know they'll ever have.

Of course, and that is generally true planetwide.  People vote with their feet, trying desperately to find their own Shangri La.  In  the West, at least, though, the purpose is primarily secular, having nothing to do with god or religion -- their focus is indeed this life only, the only one they believe in.  For many in the consequent culture wars, anything goes, including evangelicals cozying up to the very Beast from the pit, and for others any claim at all is acceptable in furtherance of their own "side."  Partisanship and "winning" far more important than being kind and forthright.  Somehow ethical and moral considerations mean less than ever.

Yet, here on this board we seem to have achieved some sort of consensus on how to carry on real discussions without scapegoating one another.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Tsuzuki said:

That sounds kind of like the Hunger Games.

truly.

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Of course, and that is generally true planetwide.  People vote with their feet, trying desperately to find their own Shangri La.  In  the West, at least, though, the purpose is primarily secular, having nothing to do with god or religion -- their focus is indeed this life only, the only one they believe in.  For many in the consequent culture wars, anything goes, including evangelicals cozying up to the very Beast from the pit, and for others any claim at all is acceptable in furtherance of their own "side."  Partisanship and "winning" far more important than being kind and forthright.  Somehow ethical and moral considerations mean less than ever.

Yet, here on this board we seem to have achieved some sort of consensus on how to carry on real discussions without scapegoating one another.

Not just Shangri La, though, but also meaningful moral grounding and an enduring legacy of good to leave on the planet when they leave.

[california boy]

14 hours ago, CV75 said:

Sorry this is so quick, but I think Elder Christofferson addressed this dynamic in the "shame culture" in his recent GC talk https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2017/04/the-voice-of-warning?lang=eng

(copied):

"Sometimes those who raise a warning voice are dismissed as judgmental. Paradoxically, however, those who claim truth is relative and moral standards are a matter of personal preference are often the same ones who most harshly criticize people who don’t accept the current norm of “correct thinking.” One writer referred to this as the “shame culture”:

“In a guilt culture you know you are good or bad by what your conscience feels. In a shame culture you know you are good or bad by what your community says about you, by whether it honors or excludes you. … [In the shame culture,] moral life is not built on the continuum of right and wrong; it’s built on the continuum of inclusion and exclusion. …

“… Everybody is perpetually insecure in a moral system based on inclusion and exclusion. There are no permanent standards, just the shifting judgment of the crowd. It is a culture of oversensitivity, overreaction and frequent moral panics, during which everybody feels compelled to go along. … 

“The guilt culture could be harsh, but at least you could hate the sin and still love the sinner. The modern shame culture allegedly values inclusion and tolerance, but it can be strangely unmerciful to those who disagree and to those who don’t fit in.”

I think we saw this exemplified in a recent thread that discussed the value of setting people up into classes/categories of LDS belief and thought, which I think is an approach leveraging a dependency on what your community / crowd says about you, and finding purpose in controlling that narrative.

From my point of view, it is hard to not believe that Elder Christofferson is talking about the Mormon church.  It is very much a church of us against them.  It is a culture based on shame.  Some on this board have even claimed that a person can not begin to repent if they feel no shame.  From almost the  entire history of the church, their doctrine/policy excluded one group or another.  The Mormon Church is hardly a big tent kind of church, though they often make that claim.  Actions have alway spoke louder than words.

Does someone else get a different message from his talk?  Or is this just another talk saying "we are the good guys, and the world out there are the bad guys."

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Of course, and that is generally true planetwide.  People vote with their feet, trying desperately to find their own Shangri La.  In  the West, at least, though, the purpose is primarily secular, having nothing to do with god or religion -- their focus is indeed this life only, the only one they believe in.  For many in the consequent culture wars, anything goes, including evangelicals cozying up to the very Beast from the pit, and for others any claim at all is acceptable in furtherance of their own "side."  Partisanship and "winning" far more important than being kind and forthright.  Somehow ethical and moral considerations mean less than ever.

Yet, here on this board we seem to have achieved some sort of consensus on how to carry on real discussions without scapegoating one another.

For a lot of people, religion has failed them.  So religion is no longer an option that they feel they can trust in. They look for other things to believe in.  Sometimes science and secular thought seems more trustworthy and believable.  I think a lot of people are compelled to find truth.  People find it in different places.  

For example, you just posted a quote from Abraham.  For that quote to be true, one has to first believe that those are the actual words of Abraham as was the claim.  Science (that other source of truth) says that it is not.  So for the person that is looking for truth through science, those words don't represent any truth at all.  Does that make sense?

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I'm gonna try again to help you understand

Double-Bind: it's when both viable choices are painful. I think and feel like I know the church is not true, and so going along with that would be agonising and a waste of my opportunities. Yet, the first forty years of my life have been formed within this Mormon paradigm, so living outside of it requires a deliberate and often difficult restructuring of a new paradigm.

Both paths are hard, but--you'd rather be at church with people who sincerely believe and aren't faking it, right?--so I choose the only path I have ever wanted, and that's to try to follow the truth.

And this is where, for you, energy is required on your part to understand me. In order for me to be honest with you, I must say that it's about integrity.  But you've got to atleast temporarily suspend or forget any implications this would have about you, and try to empathize and agree that, yes, you would want to follow the truth, too, so you understand my motives even if you don't draw the same conclusions for yourself.

So then you appreciate the fact that you can try your own parh for truth and I can try mine, and it's okay if they're different maybe even necessary that they're different because the universe is so big it would be a coincidence if all correct paths were identical.

So, in these conversations, hopefully we can set the personal judgments aside and concentrate on reasoning processes, and make discussion about the exercise of working with our experiences and understandings to arrive at more robust conclusions.

And hopefully we're all the better for it. And each one happier.

Again let me try to put your insulting comments, and those who agreed with it with rep points. I understand that people leave the Church. I understand that the reasons can almost be as numerous as the number who leave. I understand that those who remain somehow anger and upset those who leave. The question is why? I have never started a thread like this one, it was inspired by the many threads I have seen over decades, the rude comments and personal insults to the believers. The idea that those who still have testimonies are somehow lacking in intelligence or integrity, lying to themselves. I am happy with my choice, and do not go out of my way to browbeat those who leave. However, many feel the need to do so in as many forums and websites as they can. Their "happiness and peace" takes on the form to telling others how misguided they are. Then when they are unable to make inroads, comments become more aggressive and often lead to warnings and banning from threads or ever websites.

in the "vision of the tree of life", when Lehi tasted of the fruit, his first desire was to share it with those he loved. When two of his sons refused there was sadness, not anger or rath. True peace, true happiness, true contentment, does not lead to insults and anger at others...most who find such peace do not need express anger at those who do not follow their path, they just move on. So I thank you for trying to make me "understand", but I have a good understanding already. Also your thinly veiled insults are received and understanding. But once again, it is not "personal judgements", but personal observations. 

 

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Tsuzuki said:

When beliefs intersect politics, there can be real harm.

There's also the fact that this is a discussion board, so it should be no surprise that I bring my views to the table. You should see my posts on Thelemic message boards. We're more ruthless with each other.
"As brothers fight ye!" - Liber AL vel Legis III:59

I was not aware this thread addressed any politics, and I would hope you bring none to it. 

[Guest]

12 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Not sure I follow what you mean here, Papa...

Are you saying that you believe that The Journal of Health and Social Behavior and The US National Library of Medicine and the National Institute of Heath (the sources that MormonVideoGame quoted from) are "opinion pieces that don't like Churches in general"...? 

If so, do you have evidence that that is the case? 

Or are we misunderstanding you....? 

Can you help us understand what you mean, here...?

I saw no quote from any journala of health, just a comment about depression from leaving strict Churches, that was what I was speaking too, and the charge that I was being judgmental. Can you help me understand how you rolled that in, because without quoting any such journal, it seemed to me to be opinion, his opinion. Could you go back and point out where the "U.S. National Library of Medicine and National Institute of Health" was mentioned in his quote? If so, I will apologize for calling it "opinion". 

[HappyJackWagon]

Quote

But the common thread or this thread is to ask why the unbelieving seemed harmed (hurt) by those who believe in God, for the atheists, and for those who have left or losing faith in the Church, by those who remain faithful? I am sure so will say they are not hurt, but so often their threads and posts suggest people who are hurting. 

Some people are harmed. Often times people who leave are labeled (apostate), or accused (immoral, weak, lazy), by people they love the most. There is not only a sense of betrayal that the church didn't live up to the expectations the individual had for it, but the closest loved ones often empathy, understanding, compassion, and patience for people who leave, which only compounds the sense of betrayal.

Everyone wants to be understood and validated to some extent. The faithful try to share their understanding and joy of the gospel because they think it might benefit others. Well, those who no longer believe also feel that their understanding and joy might benefit others.

Personally, going through a faith transition (which started as a crisis) was very unsettling and scary. As I searched for understanding and help from the people I love there was more accusation and labeling than there was compassion. I was met by others with fear. By merely raising questions about cultural issues I thought were harmful, I was labeled a Korihor by my parents and grandparents. Because I didn't believe like them I was judged harshly. It hurt. That is harm.

So for me there is naturally a hesitance to engage with people I think will harm me. It's happened in the past so now I'm on guard. I think that is reasonable, yet also not the greatest footing for building/strengthening relationships.

[Guest]

12 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

You have to be kidding me! What a waste of my precious time

My source is the Journal of Health and Social Behavior (JHSB), " a medical sociology journal that publishes empirical and theoretical articles that apply sociological concepts and methods to the understanding of health and illness and the organization of medicine and health care"

 "Internet users who are compulsive about going online and have more social interactions in virtual worlds than the real one may be depressed, according to a new study."

http://www.webmd.com/depression/news/20100204/internet-addiction-linked-to-depression#1

"We find that people who are raised and stay in high-cost sectarian groups, such as the Latter-day Saints and Jehovah’s Witnesses, have better self-reported health than those raised and staying in other religious traditions. However, people who leave such groups are more likely to report worse health than those who leave other groups."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20943593

This is the last time I am going to reply to you. I am adding you to my ignore list. 

A source that you omitted with your original comment, lead one other to think that was what I was addressing. If it is a waste of your previous time, do not feel you need to waste anymore. 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

16 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

I have noticed over many years, that to those who do not believe in God, or to those who have no Faith, seem harmed by those who do. It takes on the form of threads that seek to belittle the believing, or "drive by posts", for those who still have faith or testimonies of the Church. Here of course the focus is on belief and faith in God and in the Mormon Church. But on other websites it is a constant, effort, anger, or "full court press" to convince others...or lead others into unbelief. 

Non-believers, and those who have left or are losing faith in the Church, seem to need a reinforcement that comes through their efforts to plant the "seeds of doubt" in those who still believe. It is not enough that they no longer believe, they seek to swell their ranks in an effort to have others feel the sense of loss they are experiencing. Sometimes they return, or when invited back begin by being polite, and happy, "at peace" (if you will), only to get frustrated when their comments are not received as they might hope. Then it turns to silly jokes about those who still mount a defense of the Church, then more direct barbs, or being less polite and then anger. At this point, (as many have put it) that "they just can't go down this road again" (too paraphrase) or end up being limited or banned again. I am speaking of many forums where believers and atheists debate, but here it takes on the form of God and The Church, as on other forums, it is only about belief vs unbelief. On this site (obviously) it is about both atheists and those who have left the LDS Church, since one can leave the Church and still believe in God. By the way, everything I listed in this second paragraph is a two way street, as many if not most like to have their feeling reinforced. 

But the common thread or this thread is to ask why the unbelieving seemed harmed (hurt) by those who believe in God, for the atheists, and for those who have left or losing faith in the Church, by those who remain faithful? I am sure so will say they are not hurt, but so often their threads and posts suggest people who are hurting. 

I would love to hear from all who have thoughts on this topic. 

I think there is probably a lot behind the anger expressed on both sides that we don't and can't see. Believers get angry as well as non-believers when it comes to the hot button issues like religion. There are a lot of pressures from family and spouses to go one way or another. Belief is sometimes a prerequisite to staying married and vice versa. So, I guess I'm not surprised when people seemingly get offended by another's beliefs or non-beliefs. 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

17 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

 

 

Edited May 4, 2017 by Pete Ahlstrom

[Pete Ahlstrom]

17 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

 

 

Edited May 4, 2017 by Pete Ahlstrom

[stemelbow]

17 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Non-believers, and those who have left or are losing faith in the Church, seem to need a reinforcement that comes through their efforts to plant the "seeds of doubt" in those who still believe.

To be fair, those that are believers, seem to do that same.  Planting seeds of non-doubt is surely a favorite pastime of believers.  We head out frequently to those who have left or don't believe to do just that.

17 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

 

It is not enough that they no longer believe, they seek to swell their ranks in an effort to have others feel the sense of loss they are experiencing.

For believers it is not enough, I guess, that we believe.  We must go out and try to get more.  SOme may interpret that too, as trying to fill in for a sense of loss, I suppose. 

17 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Sometimes they return, or when invited back begin by being polite, and happy, "at peace" (if you will), only to get frustrated when their comments are not received as they might hope.

Wow this really hits home for believers too.  They approach people, most often, by being polite, claiming happiness and peace, and yet often get frustrated when they or their message is not embraced.  Over the years as I've travelled from house to house and person to person with my fellow members to get them back to Church or to invite them to Church or to listen tot he missionaries, perhaps what frustrates me most is the attitude and responses of my companion believers when they are turned down or messages rejected. 

 

17 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Then it turns to silly jokes about those who still mount a defense of the Church, then more direct barbs, or being less polite and then anger.

Perhaps one of the saddest things I see at Church is mockery from Church members who presume a high station because they were somehow chosen to believe in the only true Church of those who don't believe or those who believe differently. Jokes abound, snideness is common.  

17 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

At this point, (as many have put it) that "they just can't go down this road again" (too paraphrase) or end up being limited or banned again. I am speaking of many forums where believers and atheists debate, but here it takes on the form of God and The Church, as on other forums, it is only about belief vs unbelief. On this site (obviously) it is about both atheists and those who have left the LDS Church, since one can leave the Church and still believe in God. By the way, everything I listed in this second paragraph is a two way street, as many if not most like to have their feeling reinforced. 

Thanks for acknowledging as much.  But if it happens on both sides then why call out the other side?  I'm of the opinion we need to be more focused on fixing our own rather than attacking the other for doing that which we do. 

17 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

But the common thread or this thread is to ask why the unbelieving seemed harmed (hurt) by those who believe in God, for the atheists, and for those who have left or losing faith in the Church, by those who remain faithful? I am sure so will say they are not hurt, but so often their threads and posts suggest people who are hurting. 

I would love to hear from all who have thoughts on this topic. 

I think the answer is the same for those who feel harmed by those members who get all upset when faced with challenges to their faith.  The solution, though not easily accomplished, in my mind is to realize we're all in this together.  We need not categorize each other as believers versus non-believer other than for the sake of convenience to speak to each other, when working with each other. 

Best to you, Papa.

[hope_for_things]

16 hours ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

I have friends who raise their hands and say "praise God" when something good happens to anyone. While I'm grateful that they acknowledge his hand in such things, their preferred way of accomplishing that simply wouldn't work for me, and would feel  contrived.

We're all wired a bit differently. What might *seem* disingenuous/uncomfortable to us might be quite the opposite for the person saying/doing it.

I agree, thats how I feel now too.  Its interesting, you can find scriptures to back up the idea of praising God in all things, or the idea of making your prayers and praise of God a private thing.  Its interesting how my sensibilities have changed on this subject in recent years.  

[JAHS]

For some I think the reason they mock and belittle is because they lack confidence in their own beliefs, or lack of them.
Their attacks and accusations help to justify and support their desire to disbelieve. Others believing in God is painful to them because they are afraid those believers might be right.
Remember I said "for some", not all.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Again let me try to put your insulting comments, and those who agreed with it with rep points. I understand that people leave the Church. I understand that the reasons can almost be as numerous as the number who leave. I understand that those who remain somehow anger and upset those who leave. The question is why? I have never started a thread like this one, it was inspired by the many threads I have seen over decades, the rude comments and personal insults to the believers. The idea that those who still have testimonies are somehow lacking in intelligence or integrity, lying to themselves. I am happy with my choice, and do not go out of my way to browbeat those who leave. However, many feel the need to do so in as many forums and websites as they can. Their "happiness and peace" takes on the form to telling others how misguided they are. Then when they are unable to make inroads, comments become more aggressive and often lead to warnings and banning from threads or ever websites.

in the "vision of the tree of life", when Lehi tasted of the fruit, his first desire was to share it with those he loved. When two of his sons refused there was sadness, not anger or rath. True peace, true happiness, true contentment, does not lead to insults and anger at others...most who find such peace do not need express anger at those who do not follow their path, they just move on. So I thank you for trying to make me "understand", but I have a good understanding already. Also your thinly veiled insults are received and understanding. But once again, it is not "personal judgements", but personal observations. 

 

Truly I did not try to insult you at all. My entire response was sincerely offered, and I really want to help you understand. 

Do you feel condescended upon because I said I will try to help?

Try to think of trying to explain your own suffering to someone who seems annoyed by or dismissive of your restrained complaints. No one knows exactly how you feel, save the Savior. No one. But people might still try to understand and you might still try to help them understand. 

Here's one more try from me on the topic at hand, it can all be summed up in one word :

pain

Imagine people speaking from a place of intense pain, or an understanding of recovery from intense pain, and you will have a better chance of making sense out of their words. 

People are grievously hurt by the church and by Mormonism: by members, leaders, teachings, the Mormon gospel, the canon, the doctrine, the history, their LDS families, the culture, and traditions. The pain can be excruciating.

I don't know what you typically see by ways of emotional speech or anger from ex-Mormons, but what one sees here on this forum seems usually to be quite restrained and reasonably framed. 

With warm regards,

Meadowchik

 

[JulieM]

15 minutes ago, JAHS said:

For some I think the reason they mock and belittle is because they lack confidence in their own beliefs, or lack of them.
Their attacks and accusations help to justify....

Once again though, that can be said about either side.  Cog dis is felt by many who are trying to believe too.

"Others believing in God is painful to them because they are afraid those believers might be right."

Many leave the church but still believe in God (I know you clarified with "some").  But, I disagree that those who do stop believing in a God, are in pain because they worry about that being wrong.

Edited May 4, 2017 by JulieM

[Pete Ahlstrom]

12 minutes ago, JAHS said:

For some I think the reason they mock and belittle is because they lack confidence in their own beliefs, or lack of them.
Their attacks and accusations help to justify and support their desire to disbelieve. Others believing in God is painful to them because they are afraid those believers might be right.
Remember I said "for some", not all.

This seems more like a reaction that would come from a waivering believer than from a non-believer. I think non-believers get frustrated because they see a lack of empirical evidence, in their opinions, and can't believe how believers could still believe despite the lack of empirical evidence. 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

From my point of view, it is hard to not believe that Elder Christofferson is talking about the Mormon church.  It is very much a church of us against them.  It is a culture based on shame.  Some on this board have even claimed that a person can not begin to repent if they feel no shame.  From almost the  entire history of the church, their doctrine/policy excluded one group or another.  The Mormon Church is hardly a big tent kind of church, though they often make that claim.  Actions have alway spoke louder than words.

Does someone else get a different message from his talk?  Or is this just another talk saying "we are the good guys, and the world out there are the bad guys."

I think “point of view” makes all the difference, which is why it is good for the speaker to be clear about the terms he uses, or the context in which he uses them. For example, Elder Christofferson’s use of the word “shame” for the purposes of this talk is likely very different than the way it may have been used by someone talking about the proper place for guilt or remorse in a discussion thread about repentance.

I don’t think he’s saying what you are interpreting or suggesting. I think he’s only saying those who perceive the Church’s message that way do it as a result of being part of a "shame culture," which he defines rather specifically. He also quotes, “Jesus taught his followers to do as he did: to welcome everyone but also to teach about sin, since love demands warning people about what can hurt them.”

Do you have examples where the Church exhorts the saints not to welcome everyone, or not teach and warn them about sin and repentance when they do?

[JAHS]

20 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

43 minutes ago, JAHS said:

For some I think the reason they mock and belittle is because they lack confidence in their own beliefs, or lack of them.
Their attacks and accusations help to justify and support their desire to disbelieve. Others believing in God is painful to them because they are afraid those believers might be right.
Remember I said "for some", not all.

This seems more like a reaction that would come from a waivering believer than from a non-believer. I think non-believers get frustrated because they see a lack of empirical evidence, in their opinions, and can't believe how believers could still believe despite the lack of empirical evidence. 

But why mock and belittle the believers? Why not just leave them alone and let them believe if it makes them happy? I think sometimes it is a matter of self-justification.  If they were confident and secure in their own position there would be no need to put down others who do believe.