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

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Tsuzuki said:

I never said this thread did.

Now I am puzzled, but that is OK, not need point out where or what I said lead to your comment. As I would prefer politics not enter in, even if that misunderstanding was my own. 

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Until you hear the wife's side of the story, you might be generous enough to give her as much benefit of the doubt as him, both being total strangers to you, and consider there might be more to it than just the one issue,

Maybe it "went right over her head" because that wasn't the reason she divorced him.

Those were his words. ETA: Here are several stories of it happening. You're able to read instead of listen to the podcast. http://www.mormonstories.org/stories-of-marital-distress-or-divorce-because-of-a-mormon-faith-crisis/

ETA again: http://zelphontheshelf.com/no-the-lds-church-is-not-a-family-first-church/

Looks like the scales tip in favor of the TBM's in these cases, treating their family members worse than the reverse, IMO. 

Edited May 5, 2017 by Tacenda

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Those were his words. ETA: Here are several stories of it happening. You're able to read instead of listen to the podcast. http://www.mormonstories.org/stories-of-marital-distress-or-divorce-because-of-a-mormon-faith-crisis/

ETA again: http://zelphontheshelf.com/no-the-lds-church-is-not-a-family-first-church/

I am not debating that was the way he told the story.  I am debating the accuracy of his perception (I don't doubt he is telling the truth as he sees it)....just as I would if .I only heard his exwife's side of things.

I am well aware of accusations of requiring divorces for simple disbelief.  I am also certain it happens in some cases.  But .I also know of some cases where it has been claimed when the reality was something else...one was personal issues that had nothing to do with religion, another was because the exbelieving spouse became abusive in their demands that the believer accept their new way of doing things.

I also am aware of a number of other nonLDS and LDS nonrelgion related divorces or marital conflict cases (most often personality differences or Fidelity problems) where the spouses/exspouses tell very different stories and in the few cases where I know of what went on, most of the time each has stuff in their stories wrong (they never get any attention, the other spouse is completely self centered, etc), each has stuff right  (big one is a refusal to communicate on more than a superficial or problem solving level).  There are a few cases where as far as I could tell, it was completely one sided, a wife waking up one day and telling her husband out of the blue she never loved him and only married him because he was going to be a doctor, another where the husband was a sociopath and everyone, including the wife were clueless until the big reveal.

This is the human condition of relationships, we rarely see conflict the same way as the other does and sometime it is way off.  Also we often prefer to simplify it to one or two causes so we don't have to feel so responsible or it just feels better to have it pegged rather than continue to worry about what went wrong and what might go wrong in one's next relationship.

So unless your links have both spouses telling their stories of how the divorce came to be, your link don't demonstrate that the sole reason an exbeliever got divorced was the change of faith. It may be what they believe, but that doesn't make it any more accurate unless it is also claimed as the reason by the other spouse.

Quote

Looks like the scales tip in favor of the TBM's in these cases, treating their family members worse than the reverse, IMO.

And it would be rather remarkable if it didn't on a site that collects stories about mistreatment by TBM family members frequented by exbelievers and critics.

I would expect the reverse on a website that collects mistreatment or abuse by disbelievers stories.

And I would trust each the same for accuracy, which is not much.

Edited May 5, 2017 by Calm

[california boy]

21 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

No, because that is false.  I show that merely by the measure of science alone, one can believe that those are the very words of Abraham:  See my “A Brief Assessment of the LDS Book of Abraham,”  version 8 online August 18, 2014, online at http://www.scribd.com/doc/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham .

Robert, you can't write an opinion piece (by your own admission in the very first paragraph) on the Book of Abraham and then turn around and call it "fact".  Has your piece gone through peer review?  Have you even published your piece in a scientific Journal?  Have other well known and acknowledged experts in this field acknowledged that what you wrote as fact?  Has anyone dated the papyrus or ink to fit the time of Abraham?  

You have a long way to go before you can say that the Book of Abraham has been proven to be true by science.  Writing something and posting it on the internet, no matter how brilliant you may personally think it is does not qualify as scientific proof.  So far the body of evidence is strongly stacked against the Book of Abraham being the actual writings of Abraham.  If you really think your paper has scientific merit, then throw it out there.  Go through the process and get some acknowledged scientists to agree with you.  No one can claim something is scientifically correct until the theory has been thoroughly tested and reviewed.  

[california boy]

22 hours ago, CV75 said:

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?

 

So tell me how Elder Christopherson is using the word "shame" differently than anyone else uses that word?  What do you think he means by the  "shame culture"?  

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Robert, you can't write an opinion piece (by your own admission in the very first paragraph) on the Book of Abraham and then turn around and call it "fact".  Has your piece gone through peer review?  Have you even published your piece in a scientific Journal?  Have other well known and acknowledged experts in this field acknowledged that what you wrote as fact?  Has anyone dated the papyrus or ink to fit the time of Abraham?  

You have a long way to go before you can say that the Book of Abraham has been proven to be true by science.  Writing something and posting it on the internet, no matter how brilliant you may personally think it is does not qualify as scientific proof.  So far the body of evidence is strongly stacked against the Book of Abraham being the actual writings of Abraham.  If you really think your paper has scientific merit, then throw it out there.  Go through the process and get some acknowledged scientists to agree with you.  No one can claim something is scientifically correct until the theory has been thoroughly tested and reviewed.  

My paper is not an opinion piece.  It is straight reportage on what the actual views of peer-reviewed scholars happen to be.  Like climate science, you may be in denial, and you may substitute alternative facts, but that doesn't change the real facts.  Since you are not conversant with the facts, I thought I'd make a summary available to you in a non-threatening way.  You can read it or not, as you wish.

The facts do away with many of the silly and unjustified assumptions, such as that the papyri must date from the time of Abraham to be the valid words of Abraham.  No one makes such a claim for the writings of Paul, which he wrote with his own hand.  We all know very well that the New Testament papyri were copied and recopied for over a thousand of years -- until book publishing began.

As I said in the first paragraph of my paper:

Quote

There are in my opinion, several sound empirical reasons for considering the LDS Book of Abraham as a translation of an ancient document, whether as a pseudepigraphon from late antiquity, or as an authentic document transmitted and redacted by the Jewish community from as early as the Middle Bronze Age. In making a fair assessment of such a book, it is helpful (1) to temporarily bracket faith considerations, and (2) to study scholarly opinion from third parties not caught up in the heat of sectarian debate. With such an approach, considerable progress can be made. What follows is a very brief treatment of some of the scholarly data and information which I think merit attention.

 

[Rain]

 

On Thursday, May 04, 2017 at 7:10 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

I agree and understand this kind of thing happens. I absolutely feel it should NOT happen and it bothers me when people claim to follow Christ and then treat others poorly out of their defense of Christ (I say this, knowing I may be among the guilty).

The thing that frustrates me -always frustrates me in nearly everything in life, not just people leaving my religion - is all the miscommunication that goes on with it. On both sides. Sometimes there are so many hints given and received that it makes things so difficult. 

Awhile ago someone on this board accused someone else of treating them badly. When I went to look through the posts I discovered that the accuser picked up hints of bad treatment that just were not there. However, it is easy to see those assumed hints because sometimes the hints really are there so we believe they are always there. 

I first learned about this about 5 or 6 years ago. It has taken a lot of work to take out all hints in what I say and I'm not perfect at it yet.  Convincing others that I don't have when I don't is even harder. 

What I'm trying to say is somehow we need to take the unChristlike behavior (and unChristlike hints) out of our lives when working with those who no longer believe, but also figure out how to help others (on both sides) not hear hints that are not there. 

Just a note - I am NOT saying that you, Happy, felt non existent hints from your loved ones. I wasn't there. I can't make that call.  Just saying I have seen it on this board and in my life and think we could go along way in helping the situation if we figured out how to deal with it..

 

[clarkgoble]

While I personally am pretty persuaded by the parallels of the Book of Abraham to pseudopigraphia and related texts from the period 200 BC - 400 AD it's not quite the slam dunk many portray due to the place of hermeticism in Renaissance thought and how that persisted within the masonic tradition. The hermetic tradition explicitly tied Abraham to Egypt and to the heretic corpus. (Illegitimately of course, but that's a different matter) The discussion of governors in fac. 2 seems quite similar to role of decans in the hermetic tradition for instance. The tie of God to orbits of planets also is common to the hermetic tradition as is the idea of different levels of divine beings. The idea of a being like God who is a demiurge creator (Abr 3:24) is in the hermetic tradition. The idea of Abraham getting this knowledge in Egypt is in the hermetic tradition and Kircher even thinks Hermes Trismegistus was a contemporary of Abraham. (Even though by the 17th century it was known the hermeticum was a late 4th century work based upon platonism, stoicism, gnosticism, Judaism and Christianity) The notion of pre-mortal intelligences is also hermetic/platonic. 

Even though I acknowledge these broad parallels and might even acknowledge loose knowledge of masonry and hermeticism shaped Joseph's thought, I think the Book of Abraham is different. Further there are elements not in the hermeticism that are in traditions about Abraham that pop up in weird places. But I'd be the first to acknowledge that it complicates things to say it's impossible for Joseph to have done this.

[CV75]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

So tell me how Elder Christopherson is using the word "shame" differently than anyone else uses that word?  What do you think he means by the  "shame culture"?  

His meaning is right there in the quote. It describes what is meant by "shame culture" and what a "shame culture" looks like. Is tehre something about hsi description that you do not understand?

The word "shame" is used in many, many different ways (definitions and contexts), so there can be no single way that "anyone else" uses it.

[MormonVideoGame]

On 5/4/2017 at 8:37 PM, Calm said:

their demands that the believer accept their new way of doing things.

what do you mean? 

On 5/4/2017 at 8:10 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

Exactly! Some former LDS  have a lot of pain, especially if they were members for decades and made a lot of sacrifices for the church. I can imagine some of them feel they wasted half of their life. 

On 5/4/2017 at 9:56 AM, JAHS said:

But why mock and belittle the believers? Why not just leave them alone and let them believe if it makes them happy? 

The reality is that most former believers do exactly that, they just live and let live. However, some are simply too hurt.  

There are plenty of Christian believers that mock or belittle others, so what exactly is your point? 

Edited May 6, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[MormonVideoGame]

On 5/4/2017 at 8:37 PM, Calm said:

I would expect the reverse on a website that collects mistreatment or abuse by disbelievers stories.

Atheism is growing as a share of the US population, and it is growing way faster than the LDS church and Christianity. Atheists don't tend to have a lot of children, so large families can't explain the growth. That can only mean that most Atheists don't convert back to religion. Three percent of Americans are Atheist, and 57% of Atheists don't have a college degree. 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/04/the-most-and-least-educated-u-s-religious-groups/

Federal prison population is only 0.1% Atheist. I highly doubt that most Atheists in prison are converting to Christianity, especially if they are ex-Christian. It is certainty not the case outside.  It is mostly unaffiliated Theists that convert to Christianity. 

So 3% (1.5% without a college degree) of US Atheists compared to 0.1% of prison Atheists is a lot of difference. That is 30 times more. 

 http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/08/21/atheists-now-make-up-0-1-of-the-federal-prison-population/

So do you have any evidence that godless Atheists are mistreating (or abusing) their wives? 

Edited May 6, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[Calm]

"So do you have any evidence that godless Atheists are mistreating (or abusing) their wives?"

Do you read posts?

Not what I stated.

[MormonVideoGame]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

Do you read posts?

Not what I stated.

Some. You are saying both (husband and the wife) have different point of view, or perspective.  

You stated, " exbelieving spouse became abusive in their demands that the believer accept their new way of doing things." 

What do you mean by that? According to the stories how did they become abusive? and what did they demand? 

You derail threads when you misrepresent what other posters say. Be more careful.

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Some. You are saying both (husband and the wife) have different point of view, or perspective.  

You stated, " exbelieving spouse became abusive in their demands that the believer accept their new way of doing things." 

What do you mean by that? According to the stories how did they become abusive? and what did they demand? 

Deleted

Edited May 6, 2017 by Tacenda

[Calm]

1 hour ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Some. You are saying both (husband and the wife) have different point of view, or perspective.  

You stated, " exbelieving spouse became abusive in their demands that the believer accept their new way of doing things." 

What do you mean by that? According to the stories how did they become abusive? and what did they demand? 

Why do you care?

[CV75]

@california boy

I just happened to read today two applications of the word “shame” in the Book of Mormon. The first seems to match the idea that Elder Chirstofferson was teaching, and the second the idea your internet poster was sharing:

Jacob 1: 8, “Wherefore, we would to God that we could persuade all men not to rebel against God, to provoke him to anger, but that all men would believe in Christ, and view his death, and suffer his cross and bear the shame of the world; wherefore, I, Jacob, take it upon me to fulfil the commandment of my brother Nephi.”

Jacob 2:6, “Yea, it grieveth my soul and causeth me to shrink with shame before the presence of my Maker, that I must testify unto you concerning the wickedness of your hearts.”

So I did a word search and the two meanings that seem to be used in the Book of Mormon have to do with a) the pressure the world imposes upon the saints (and to which some succumb, as in 1 Nephi 8:25-28) and b) that sense of distress and self-consciousness for oneself or in behalf of others that is driven by his conscience.

Yet I suppose that wouldn’t keep someone from using it as a way to describe that sense of guilt and remorse that prompts us to repent, which would be a third use.

[MormonVideoGame]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

Why do you care?

Anyway, I forgot to mention that Atheists are mostly young. Only 0.1% is Atheist in prison, and I don't think many ex-christian atheists are converting to Christianity, not what happening in the US.  Atheists are good people, perhaps even better than Christians. We shouldn't judge the Atheists. Imagine going from believing in eternal families to nothingness, it is not easy. 

On 5/5/2017 at 10:26 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

 It is straight reportage on what the actual views of peer-reviewed scholars happen to be.  Like climate science, you may be in denial, and you may substitute alternative facts, but that doesn't change the real facts.  

Thumbs up for those two sentences  

Edited May 6, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said:

We shouldn't judge the Atheists. Imagine going from believing in eternal families to nothingness, it is not easy. 

And this has what to do with either my comment or my question?  You have lost me completely.

[carbon dioxide]

2 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Anyway, I forgot to mention that Atheists are mostly young. Only 0.1% is Atheist in prison, and I don't think many ex-christian atheists are converting to Christianity, not what happening in the US.  Atheists are good people, perhaps even better than Christians. We shouldn't judge the Atheists. Imagine going from believing in eternal families to nothingness, it is not easy.

Where did you get the stat of only 0.1%?   I do believe its harder to be an atheist in prison. There is not really a whole lot exciting going on in atheism.  Yes one lives their lives not worry about their actions as much and not caring about living to a certain standard but there is no good ending in atheism.  So if you are in prison for the rest of your life or a large portion of your life, it would make sense to hope for something beyond death.  To think that one has only a few years of total existence left and those years are going to be spent behind bars would be depressing. 

There are good and bad people in all groups. To assert that atheists are generally better than Christians or any other faith group is not justified however.  I would agree it is not easy from going to believing in eternal families to nothingness. 

I sort of look at this as like looking at retirement.  I plan for retirement and if I make good choices, I will have enough to live on for the rest of my life.  I may die early and not see my retirement so perhaps my efforts in retirement might be wasted but is better to plan than not plan and enter retirement and not be ready.    Its better to believe in an afterlife and God and live one life ready for that afterlife.  If that afterlife does not exist, little is lost.  I can't think of any benefit where an atheist dies and finds out there is an afterlife.  Of all groups that could be the least prepared, it would be them.  Perhaps there will be winners and losers in the groups that believe in a God and after life but as they say with the lottery, you can't win if you don't buy a ticket.  Atheists do not have any tickets so none of them are winners if they are wrong.   So perhaps I am right and perhaps I am wrong but the atheists are losers either way.  They lose if there is an afterlife and they pretty much lose if there is not.  No atheists will be celebrating or spiking the ball to believers telling them "See, us atheists were right".

 

Edited May 6, 2017 by carbon dioxide

[california boy]

22 hours ago, CV75 said:

@california boy

I just happened to read today two applications of the word “shame” in the Book of Mormon. The first seems to match the idea that Elder Chirstofferson was teaching, and the second the idea your internet poster was sharing:

 

Jacob 1: 8, “Wherefore, we would to God that we could persuade all men not to rebel against God, to provoke him to anger, but that all men would believe in Christ, and view his death, and suffer his cross and bear the shame of the world; wherefore, I, Jacob, take it upon me to fulfil the commandment of my brother Nephi.”

 

Jacob 2:6, “Yea, it grieveth my soul and causeth me to shrink with shame before the presence of my Maker, that I must testify unto you concerning the wickedness of your hearts.”

 

So I did a word search and the two meanings that seem to be used in the Book of Mormon have to do with a) the pressure the world imposes upon the saints (and to which some succumb, as in 1 Nephi 8:25-28) and b) that sense of distress and self-consciousness for oneself or in behalf of others that is driven by his conscience.

 

Yet I suppose that wouldn’t keep someone from using it as a way to describe that sense of guilt and remorse that prompts us to repent, which would be a third use.

 

You do realize that most people probably wouldn't try to split hairs to the extent you have when it comes to defining what shame is.  Whether it is society or religion using shame to push their agenda, the intent seems to be the same.  I am not saying you don't have every right to your point of view.  But I think a lot of people would think you were stretching an awful lot to come to that conclusion.  

[Bobbieaware]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

You do realize that most people probably wouldn't try to split hairs to the extent you have when it comes to defining what shame is.  Whether it is society or religion using shame to push their agenda, the intent seems to be the same.  I am not saying you don't have every right to your point of view.  But I think a lot of people would think you were stretching an awful lot to come to that conclusion.  

He is not at all stretching it because it's clear that one of the ways the Book of Mormon uses the word shame is to describe the unhappy way the righteous may feel when the unregenerate enemies of God mock and persecute them because of their fixed determination to remain true and faithful to the God of moral righteousness.

Edited May 7, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

He is not at all stretching it because it's clear that one of the ways the Book of Mormon uses the word shame is to describe the unhappy way the righteous may feel when the unregenerate enemies of God mock and persecute them because of their fixed determination to remain true and faithful to the God of moral righteousness.

So your assertion is that most people would use the Book of Mormon definition of shame?

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

So your assertion is that most people would use the Book of Mormon definition of shame?

No, but that t is one of the definitions. I guess you don't approve of Christ's teaching method because his approach often made people feel either angry or ashamed. 

[california boy]

7 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

No, but that t is one of the definitions. I guess you don't approve of Christ's teaching method because his approach often made people feel either angry or ashamed. 

What are you talking about.  I never said no one should feel anger or shame.  

I did look up the definition of shame in the dictionary.  Sorry, but I couldn't find a special definition that Mormons have some claim to.  Perhaps you could find a dictionary definition that actually supports your assertion that the Book of Mormon definition should be understood by the general public.

I am not trying to be unreasonable here.  But your assumptions seem to be without merit in the context to what I have actually said.  

Edited May 7, 2017 by california boy

[CV75]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

You do realize that most people...

A good example of what Elder Christoffereson is talking about.