Ex-mormon stories

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There is a veritable profusion of it, ttribe, and here is a sampling from my current files:

Ed Stourton, “The decline of religion in the West,” BBC News, June 26, 2015, online at http://www.bbc.com/news/world-33256561 , 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtAR_OGzlcg (TED talk – “Why there is no way back for religion in the West” | David Voas | TEDxUniversityofEssex)

Dr Filip Uzarevic (Catholic University of Louvain, UCL, Belgium), "Are Atheists Undogmatic?" states that "irreligion has become normative" in some Western countries.  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/atheists-agnostic-religion-close-minded-tolerant-catholics-uk-france-spain-study-belgium-catholic-a7819221.html .

“Why People Leave the LDS Church,” Sunstone Review, 4/3 (Mar 1984), 10.

David G. Bromley, “Unraveling Religious Disaffiliation: The Meaning and Significance of Falling From the Faith in Contemporary Society,” Counseling & Values, 35/3 (April 1991):164-185, online at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.2161-007X.1991.tb00989.x/abstract . 

Stan L. Albrecht and H. M. Bahr. “Patterns of religious disaffiliation: A study of lifelong Mormons, Mormon converts, and former Mormons.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 22 (1983):366-379, online at http://www.jstor.org/stable/1385774?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents . 

H. M. Bahr and S. L. Albrecht,  “Strangers once more: Patterns of disaffiliation from Mormonism.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 28 (1989):180-200, online at http://www.jstor.org/stable/1387058?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents , commenting:

B. Altemeyer and B. Hunsberger., Amazing conversions: Why some turn to faith & others abandon religion (Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 1997). ---the power of socialization.

Here is a typical comment from  Agnostic Mormon Mom in June 2013:

J. D. Barbour, Versions of deconversions: Autobiography and the loss of faith (Charlottesville, Virginia: University of Virginia Press, 1994),   https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=w0whChb6hFQC&oi=fnd&pg=PP15&dq=Barbour,+J.+D.+1994.+Versions+of+deconversions:+Autobiography+and+the+loss+of+faith.+Charlottesville,+Virginia:+University+of+Virginia+Press&ots=BPU275EDkE&sig=uAw7X_qW4ONnP9E2-LxbTFzcDBU#v=onepage&q&f=false .  
page 2, “In this century, secularization is probably the more common way that people lose their faith, but, in contrast to deconversion, it does not usually motivate or decisively shape the writing of autobiography.”

Lori L. Fazzino, “Leaving the Church Behind: Applying a Deconversion Perspective to Evangelical Exit Narratives,” Journal of Contemporary Religion, 29/2 (2014):249-266, online at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13537903.2014.903664?src=recsys .

I could go on with this for another ten pages of the same

Well, this is much more helpful than beating someone over the head for not agreeing with you by using a vague reference to "data" that supports your (and only your) conclusion.

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, ttribe said:

Well, this is much more helpful than beating someone over the head for not agreeing with you by using a vague reference to "data" that supports your (and only your) conclusion.

Actually, I have cited such sources in the past on this board, but maybe not everyone was present during those discussions, and I am always happy to provide such sources.  Those who are familiar with me on this board already know that I can back up what I say, and I don't see how talking turkey is "beating someone over the head."  My summaries of facts in an academic manner are meant to be helpful.

Edited August 24, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Actually, I have cited such sources in the past on this board, but maybe not everyone was present during those discussions, and I am always happy to provide such sources.  Those who are familiar with me on this board already know that I can back up what I say, and I don't see how talking turkey is "beating someone over the head."  My summa;ries of facts in an academic manner are meant to be helpful.

That's fine, Robert.  I've been around long enough, I think, to know how things tend to work around here and your post came off as rather aggressive and self-serving; but, hey, it's the Internet so those two things are pretty common.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 minutes ago, ttribe said:

That's fine, Robert.  I've been around long enough, I think, to know how things tend to work around here and your post came off as rather aggressive and self-serving; but, hey, it's the Internet so those two things are pretty common.

I just think it is nice to be gracious and appreciative, rather than accusatory in our online exchanges.  The general polarization over religion and politics already infects nearly everything we do or say these days.  There are indeed boards where self-serving and aggressive comments are normal.  We try to keep that to a minimum here.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

41 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I just think it is nice to be gracious and appreciative, rather than accusatory in our online exchanges.  The general polarization over religion and politics already infects nearly everything we do or say these days.  There are indeed boards where self-serving and aggressive comments are normal.  We try to keep that to a minimum here.

Thanks for giving sources.

[Atheist Mormon]

On 8/21/2017 at 7:46 PM, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I read many negative stories on ex-mormon reddit, including stories of divorce and abandonment. Readers without a strong testimony can easily come to the conclusion that the Church of Jesus Christ is harmful or dangerous.  I know someone that left the church for reading ex-mormon reddit, and I want to say that exmormon stories are making some impact.  

 I hope people can come to understand that negative stories are typically one-sided, I am sure exmos forget many positives experiences they had in church.  And of course places like Ex-mormon reddit  only attract people that have negative things to say about the church.  What can we tell a love one who reads negative stories of our church?  

I told my cousin that church leaders are not perfect, but he was too disappointed and emotional. I don't know what else to tell him, some suggestions are welcomed.    

 "I don't know what else to tell him, some suggestions are welcomed." 

This is frankly a "lose & Lose" situation. You had nothing to do in creation of this (I wouldn't feel bad if I were you). Joseph created all this like his predecessors (going back to Jesus).....There was never a power behind it....therefore it will crumble like house of cards.....Look at all those Christian Born Again Anti-Mormons....How far their voices reach? 

Because if you unravel this....Its their turn......

[The Nehor]

12 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

 "I don't know what else to tell him, some suggestions are welcomed." 

This is frankly a "lose & Lose" situation. You had nothing to do in creation of this (I wouldn't feel bad if I were you). Joseph created all this like his predecessors (going back to Jesus).....There was never a power behind it....therefore it will crumble like house of cards.....Look at all those Christian Born Again Anti-Mormons....How far their voices reach? 

Because if you unravel this....Its their turn......

Well, the jig is up. We had a good run but might as well close up shop and go home now. We have been found out.

Edited August 24, 2017 by The Nehor

[strappinglad]

36 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Well, the jig is up. We had a good run but might as well close up shop and go home now. We have been found out.

Has anyone seen my little red wagon?

[mfbukowski]

On 8/21/2017 at 9:44 PM, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I know it's hard to believe but maybe it's just not what it claims to be. Maybe those critical thinking skills and scientific reasoning you seem to want to equate with mormonism is what led this person out?

LOL

Just note he said nothing about science.  It is you who equate "scientific reasoning" with critical skills when in fact that way of thinking has nothing to do with religion.  That is your prejudice- he knows better.

Religion has nothing to do with how the world works, they have to deal with our attitude toward what happens in our lives and what gives us meaning in life.  You cannot get that from science, intentionally.  Science is specifically designed NOT to deal with what is more important than other things- it simply objectively reports what it "sees".

What is important in life is not subject to empirical observation.

Did you do experiments to find out what political party is "right" or whom to marry?   What experiment "shows" that one should treat others they way one would like to be treated?  Why should we worry about saving the earth for generations yet unborn?  What are they to you?  What is your empirical observation that answers that?

[mfbukowski]

On 8/21/2017 at 10:35 PM, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Blind faith that leads people out? How so? Blind faith is usually associated with high demand religion but you say it leads people out? Is up really down?

Absolutely not.  You have a very weak understanding of Mormonism and religion in general.  You are a religophobe.   Congratulations!  You are the first of a new stereotype!

 

[mfbukowski]

On 8/22/2017 at 4:35 AM, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I don't follow you here. Who today has blind faith in the earth being flat, etc? And from what do they apostasize?

Go back and check the number of rep points he got for this, and then wonder why you didn't get it while others do obviously

Could it be you are missing something with your stereotypes?  That has to be somewhat of an empirical observation, doesn't it?  Like maybe you really are not getting it?

Edited August 24, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

On 8/22/2017 at 4:46 AM, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Do you think that science, reason, and logic will actually lead someone to mormonism? It seems to be the opposite, to me at least.

I found Mormonism that way.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, ttribe said:

That's fine, Robert.  I've been around long enough, I think, to know how things tend to work around here and your post came off as rather aggressive and self-serving; but, hey, it's the Internet so those two things are pretty common.

Was somebody complaining here a few hours ago about "broad brush" argumentation?

[strappinglad]

I was in high school in the early 60s. I attended seminary. We had a text about the history of the Church. In it was found the story of MMM and it didn't hold back much. Polygamy of Joseph? Yep. Brigham young and his proclamations? Yep. Then I went to BYU and discovered Hugh Nibley and his works and read them all, well at least 13 volumes. Bro. Nibley was an apologist of course , but he wasn't shy about his opinions of when he thought the brethren were in error, or if the current ' narrative' was off. I read some anti stuff and was able to see the tactic of using partial truth  to foster blatant lies. I learned that when shown error by leaders , a typical reaction is to throw it all away and believe 100% of anything contrary to the Church... just like they used to believe 100% what they were taught in Sunday School. Perhaps correlation overstepped the bounds. I assume it was in response to the worldwide growth in the places where there was not a long tradition of church membership and we were faced with the calling of leaders and teachers who had as little as a couple of months preparation let alone a few years.

 

As a side note, Darwin himself was concerned about whether or not we could rely on the logic and rational conclusions made by an evolved monkey brain. Maybe some Eastern philosophy is correct and this life is all an illusion. I just read where some scientists postulate we are in a simulation. HMMM, logical?

Edited August 24, 2017 by strappinglad

[ttribe]

13 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Was somebody complaining here a few hours ago about "broad brush" argumentation?

[sigh] Let me point out the difference, since you seem to think you were clever, here.  I pointed out to Kenngo1969 that he had identified a single instance of alleged sexist language but then tried to attribute that behavior to every critic on the board.  In other words, he attempted to generalize from the singular to the plural.  In the instance of my post that you quoted, I had already pointed out, to the individual poster, that I thought his post was aggressive but then used sarcasm to "excuse" his conduct for him because such behavior is, in fact, so widespread on Internet message boards.  I did not attempt to paint EVERY DEFENDER on this board with the characteristics I observed in Robert's post.

[Scott Lloyd]

49 minutes ago, ttribe said:

[sigh] Let me point out the difference, since you seem to think you were clever, here.  I pointed out to Kenngo1969 that he had identified a single instance of alleged sexist language but then tried to attribute that behavior to every critic on the board.  In other words, he attempted to generalize from the singular to the plural.  In the instance of my post that you quoted, I had already pointed out, to the individual poster, that I thought his post was aggressive but then used sarcasm to "excuse" his conduct for him because such behavior is, in fact, so widespread on Internet message boards.  I did not attempt to paint EVERY DEFENDER on this board with the characteristics I observed in Robert's post.

The "I know how things work around here" was what struck me as broad brush. People here, especially defenders, are pretty good about documenting what they say, and the CFR function is pretty good as an enforcement tool.

Edited August 24, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[ttribe]

26 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The "I know how things work around here" was what struck me as broad brush. People here, especially defenders, are pretty good about documenting what they say, and the CFR function is pretty good as an enforcement tool.

I said that in response to Robert's implication that I was new around here. As to the CFR rule, I find it more abused than useful; but that's just my opinion.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I said that in response to Robert's implication that I was new around here.

I guess I missed that part.

Quote

As to the CFR rule, I find it more abused than useful; but that's just my opinion.

I only find it abused when somebody doesn't understand what a call for references is and demands that I document what I have only expressed as my personal opinion. I generally tell the person that I am the reference for my own opinion, then I leave it at that. I have never been sanctioned for doing so.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

On 8/23/2017 at 9:49 PM, mfbukowski said:

LOL

Just note he said nothing about science.  It is you who equate "scientific reasoning" with critical skills when in fact that way of thinking has nothing to do with religion.  That is your prejudice- he knows better.

Religion has nothing to do with how the world works, they have to deal with our attitude toward what happens in our lives and what gives us meaning in life.  You cannot get that from science, intentionally.  Science is specifically designed NOT to deal with what is more important than other things- it simply objectively reports what it "sees".

What is important in life is not subject to empirical observation.

Did you do experiments to find out what political party is "right" or whom to marry?   What experiment "shows" that one should treat others they way one would like to be treated?  Why should we worry about saving the earth for generations yet unborn?  What are they to you?  What is your empirical observation that answers that?

If you thought you had a religious experience as a result of a particular group's teachings and then found out that upon closer examination those teachings didn't make any sense, were misrepresented and in some cases past teachings were hidden from view, would you continue with that group? Would you continue to pay that group? Defend that group?

[SamuelTheLamanite]

On 8/23/2017 at 8:57 AM, hope_for_things said:

Suggestions:

Try to put yourself into the other person's shoes (empathy) as much as possible.  Imagine what it would be like to lose something you hold so dearly.  I think losing faith is similar to losing a loved one for many people.  They are hurting and feeling an immense sense of loss.  Try to empathize.   

that is so true, it is a very interesting perspective. Never thought of it that way, he must feel sad and very angry. 

[SamuelTheLamanite]

On 8/22/2017 at 2:26 AM, Bernard Gui said:

We should all be cautious about forming opinions and taking hasty actions based on stories. Unfortunately, in the current climate of social media hysteria, people are more and more shooting first and asking questions later...if they even can be bothered to ask questions later.

I really like what you say. Former members aren't necessarily lying, but they usually don't share the full story, or the context. Yes, we should be very cautious, especially when the stories come from cherry picked group. In ex-mormon groups the psychology of persuasion can be very powerful. 

Edited August 26, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Pete Ahlstrom]

On 8/23/2017 at 10:05 PM, mfbukowski said:

I found Mormonism that way.

I find this interesting given how you rail against science and reason with respect to religion. Yet, this is what led you to mormonism? Is it the study it out in your mind part that led you there? Too much studying led me in the opposite direction.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I find this interesting given how you rail against science and reason with respect to religion. Yet, this is what led you to mormonism? Is it the study it out in your mind part that led you there? Too much studying led me in the opposite direction.

Short answer:  Through my study of philosophy I discovered William James who showed the validity of religious experience within a religious context and Wittgenstein who came to similar conclusions.  Then I studied further and found a huge segment of philosophers who had justified religious belief, some of which were believers and others of which were not.  Richard Rorty was one such individual.  But we have been here before and I think you have not bothered to read up on the subject.  So we are back to a single quote from wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fideism

 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

If you thought you had a religious experience as a result of a particular group's teachings and then found out that upon closer examination those teachings didn't make any sense, were misrepresented and in some cases past teachings were hidden from view, would you continue with that group? Would you continue to pay that group? Defend that group?

Probably not, there would be no reason to do so

You act as if there is one unified theory of "truth" which reveals all the secrets of the universe, so that if a proposition is "true" in one context at one time, it will be "true" in another context at another time.  

Prime simpleton example: There was no worldwide flood, therefore the Bible is not "true"

Those kinds of theories of truth are not sustainable and have mostly been abandoned years ago.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

So at certain times of one's life one may find some statements in the Bible to be "true" and at other times, other statements may be true.

When I was an atheist and Communist student of Angela Davis, I thought her message was "true" and now I see it as partially true within a given context.  Certainly workers are exploited in some places and alienation of labor, for example, is unfair.

When I was a Buddhist, I found many of it's principles "true" and still find them to be so.  Meditation is a great way to discipline the mind and make one calm, and learn to avoid all stress.

I find the idea of the Mormon version of God to be highly compatible with a humanistic paradigm, that humanism needs- that humankind can become perfected.  The notion that living like an Ideal Human is a paradigm upon which all humanity may be uplifted and guided is very valuable.   The Army advertises "Be all you can be" and so do Mormons- yet no one puts together the idea that Mormons are advocating the best human improvement program mankind has discovered, they only worry about Joseph Smith being a polygamist.

That is not critical thinking, it is stupidity.

Read this.  It is easy and short.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Varieties_of_Religious_Experience

If you can reasonably fault it, please do.

[Tacenda]

18 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

If you thought you had a religious experience as a result of a particular group's teachings and then found out that upon closer examination those teachings didn't make any sense, were misrepresented and in some cases past teachings were hidden from view, would you continue with that group? Would you continue to pay that group? Defend that group?

Good questions! I don't understand how so many in this church can disregard these things, some pretty bad. I think it's because they are living in a church that can continually change and change for the good, despite the warts in the past. They chalk it up to prophets being fallible, I guess.