Ex-mormon stories

[Pete Ahlstrom]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

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. 

I think there is a disconnect between the past and how members view themselves and the church today. They see the good people in their ward and stake and turn a blind eye to the warts. I believe the sunk cost fallacy plays a role as well in deliberately ignoring the warts. People don't want to believe that their hard work and monetary investment might not be what the leaders claim it is. I have a brother who is a stake president and he came out and said that history doesn't matter to him and he likes to focus only on the here and now. I'm sure that works for some. It just seems a little expensive to me, given the warts.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I think there is a disconnect between the past and how members view themselves and the church today. They see the good people in their ward and stake and turn a blind eye to the warts. I believe the sunk cost fallacy plays a role as well in deliberately ignoring the warts. People don't want to believe that their hard work and monetary investment might not be what the leaders claim it is. I have a brother who is a stake president and he came out and said that history doesn't matter to him and he likes to focus only on the here and now. I'm sure that works for some. It just seems a little expensive to me, given the warts.

You are looking at the church as a system of facts- it is not.

It is a way of life.

There are no facts- only interpretations- Nietzsche

I joined the church at age 31 because I had already worked out all the philosophy I needed and found that the church embodied the philosophy I had studied and created.

I had no monetary investment, I had no family in the church, no cultural connection to a bunch of farmers in Utah.   I lived in big cities in the East and California all my life.

Jefferson was a slave-owner, big time- so was Washington.

Do we abandon the constitution for those reasons?   That is very poor reasoning.  Suppose Einstein was a jerk.  Does that mean Relativity is wrong?

[Pete Ahlstrom]

18 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You are looking at the church as a system of facts- it is not.

It is a way of life.

There are no facts- only interpretations- Nietzsche

I joined the church at age 31 because I had already worked out all the philosophy I needed and found that the church embodied the philosophy I had studied and created.

I had no monetary investment, I had no family in the church, no cultural connection to a bunch of farmers in Utah.   I lived in big cities in the East and California all my life.

Jefferson was a slave-owner, big time- so was Washington.

Do we abandon the constitution for those reasons?   That is very poor reasoning.  Suppose Einstein was a jerk.  Does that mean Relativity is wrong?

But what if a letter from Joseph Smith where he confessed that he made it all up were found buried in the church archives?  Would that change your opinion?  Or would you interpret the letter as meaningless because you found meaning in the "invented" church?  Is it possible that your interpretations can be wrong?  Is it possible that people can be defrauded by a religion such as happened with Jim Jones?

[clarkgoble]

On 8/27/2017 at 10:05 AM, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I think there is a disconnect between the past and how members view themselves and the church today. They see the good people in their ward and stake and turn a blind eye to the warts. I believe the sunk cost fallacy plays a role as well in deliberately ignoring the warts. People don't want to believe that their hard work and monetary investment might not be what the leaders claim it is. I have a brother who is a stake president and he came out and said that history doesn't matter to him and he likes to focus only on the here and now. I'm sure that works for some. It just seems a little expensive to me, given the warts.

I'm sure there are people like that. I'd dispute whether they make up the majority. That certainly doesn't represent the people I'm familiar with. 

58 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

But what if a letter from Joseph Smith where he confessed that he made it all up were found buried in the church archives?  Would that change your opinion?  Or would you interpret the letter as meaningless because you found meaning in the "invented" church?  Is it possible that your interpretations can be wrong?  Is it possible that people can be defrauded by a religion such as happened with Jim Jones?

I'm sure he, like most people, would change their views with changing data. Just like I'd hope you would too. To turn the question around, can you imagine anything that would change your view on the church?

[Pete Ahlstrom]

19 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm sure there are people like that. I'd dispute whether they make up the majority. That certainly doesn't represent the people I'm familiar with. 

I'm sure he, like most people, would change their views with changing data. Just like I'd hope you would too. To turn the question around, can you imagine anything that would change your view on the church?

Better evidence would change my view.  The current state of the evidence points to non-belief as the best course.  However, I am still open to be persuaded.  I wish there were evidence that could be viewed by everyone, even the skeptic, that was convincing.  One needs to be coached into believing at the current level of evidence because the evidence points to non-belief as the logical outcome.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

But what if a letter from Joseph Smith where he confessed that he made it all up were found buried in the church archives?  Would that change your opinion?  Or would you interpret the letter as meaningless because you found meaning in the "invented" church?  Is it possible that your interpretations can be wrong?  Is it possible that people can be defrauded by a religion such as happened with Jim Jones?

No, it is not possible that my "interpretations" can be wrong any more than your scientism can be "wrong" to you.

THERE ARE NO "FACTS" ONLY INTERPRETATIONS OF DATA

THAT is what my faith is based on- not even really the philosophy of Joseph Smith.  Joseph Smith just got it before any of the other pragmatists- like William James

But based on William James, I was already living "Mormonism" before I knew what Mormonism was!!

As always you have not read any of my links if you are even asking such a question.

And if such a letter showed up, I would start my own church based on Mormonism in which I would say that Joseph was a "fallen prophet" (since that is the vocabulary of most Mormons) because I believe that Mormon BELIEFS as I understand them, have merit for the human race regardless of cults or personality

TRUE RELIGION IS NOT BASED ON CULTS OF PERSONALITY and that includes the historical Jesus as a personality

If Jesus lived 50 years ago and was named "Bob" I would still accept his philosophy of "Do unto others... etc" as plain GREAT ETHICS

I would believe that repentance takes away guilt.  You do the best you can to get better- it is the BEST you are capable and a just God is going to let you into "heaven" IF there is such a place.

It is just common sense, in my book.

The parable of God as our literal father to whom we can return and become like him, is a beautiful parable and a great concept for the edification of man if you take it literally or not.  It is Humanism raised to the highest possible degree.

And best of all, the beauty of the concept pervades my life to the point of making me weep.  It is so much a part of me, I can never separate myself from it

It has nothing to do with some guy named Smith- it has to do with the ideas and with ME and what is inside me.   My concept of God IS that paradigm.

I see the need for hierarchy in any human organization, hence the priesthood.   I see the need for mysticism in religion, hence the temple- plus the explanation supported by Christian scripture if we support that as "revelation" or not-

This is pure pragmatism- all of it is needed to bring about the lifestyle change necessary to live as mankind should live regardless of who thought it up.

You have a testimony of science if you realize it or not.  I also have a testimony of science- within it's sphere (see DC 93), but you do not limit knowledge to "spheres"

You are just not getting me, it is clear.

You really need to read that article on the deflationary theory of truth.

You are a total literal fundamentalist in your theory of truth.  You would still believe in a 6000 year old earth if that is what science taught

You are not even close to being a real skeptic.  You are still too imbued with literalism

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Better evidence would change my view.  The current state of the evidence points to non-belief as the best course.  However, I am still open to be persuaded.  I wish there were evidence that could be viewed by everyone, even the skeptic, that was convincing.  One needs to be coached into believing at the current level of evidence because the evidence points to non-belief as the logical outcome.

What is the best evidence that one kind of chocolate is better than another?

What is the best evidence that you married the right person?

What is the best evidence that your brand of steak sauce is the best?

What is the evidence for the best flavor of ice cream?   What is the best wine?

I am trying to get this to your level so you understand at least on that level that religion is about INTERNAL needs, not factual evidence.  You are just not getting this.

If you read a recipe for chocolate chip cookies, will you know that those cookies are the best cookies?

That is what you are doing.  You are saying that based on your research for chocolate chip cookies, we have no evidence that our chocolate chip cookies are the best.

YOU have to taste the cookies to feel the difference and even then others may disagree.   But it has notning to do with "evidence" especially evidence as a recipe.

The proof is in the pudding

A steak on a menu is not a steak sizzling on a plate, and there are MANY steak houses.  Which steak house is the best??

If that is the level you need expressed to get this, please at least get this.

Mormonism changes lives for those who understand it and LIVE IT.  

If you don't understand or LIVE IT, you are reading a recipe instead of tasting the cookies.

THAT is Alma 32

You are arguing why the cinnamon  is necessary and looking for evidence that cinnamon is required.  There is no such evidence without tasting the cookies.

Edited August 28, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Pete Ahlstrom]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

No, it is not possible that my "interpretations" can be wrong any more than your scientism can be "wrong" to you.

THERE ARE NO "FACTS" ONLY INTERPRETATIONS OF DATA

THAT is what my faith is based on- not even really the philosophy of Joseph Smith.  Joseph Smith just got it before any of the other pragmatists- like William James

But based on William James, I was already living "Mormonism" before I knew what Mormonism was!!

As always you have not read any of my links if you are even asking such a question.

And if such a letter showed up, I would start my own church based on Mormonism in which I would say that Joseph was a "fallen prophet" (since that is the vocabulary of most Mormons) because I believe that Mormon BELIEFS as I understand them, have merit for the human race regardless of cults or personality

TRUE RELIGION IS NOT BASED ON CULTS OF PERSONALITY and that includes the historical Jesus as a personality

If Jesus lived 50 years ago and was named "Bob" I would still accept his philosophy of "Do unto others... etc" as plain GREAT ETHICS

I would believe that repentance takes away guilt.  You do the best you can to get better- it is the BEST you are capable and a just God is going to let you into "heaven" IF there is such a place.

It is just common sense, in my book.

The parable of God as our literal father to whom we can return and become like him, is a beautiful parable and a great concept for the edification of man if you take it literally or not.  It is Humanism raised to the highest possible degree.

And best of all, the beauty of the concept pervades my life to the point of making me weep.  It is so much a part of me, I can never separate myself from it

It has nothing to do with some guy named Smith- it has to do with the ideas and with ME and what is inside me.   My concept of God IS that paradigm.

I see the need for hierarchy in any human organization, hence the priesthood.   I see the need for mysticism in religion, hence the temple- plus the explanation supported by Christian scripture if we support that as "revelation" or not-

This is pure pragmatism- all of it is needed to bring about the lifestyle change necessary to live as mankind should live regardless of who thought it up.

You have a testimony of science if you realize it or not.  I also have a testimony of science- within it's sphere (see DC 93), but you do not limit knowledge to "spheres"

You are just not getting me, it is clear.

You really need to read that article on the deflationary theory of truth.

You are a total literal fundamentalist in your theory of truth.  You would still believe in a 6000 year old earth if that is what science taught

You are not even close to being a real skeptic.  You are still too imbued with literalism

Thanks for the snide remarks at the end Mark.  Have you ever been a stake missionary or in charge of reactivating others?  Anyway, it must be tough being among the literalists in the LDS church.  They believe in literal truth and that they have it.  This where they choose to argue their cause.  They have the fundamentalist theory of truth that you reject and try to put on me for some reason.  It is to them with whom you should carry your beef.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

What is the best evidence that one kind of chocolate is better than another?

What is the best evidence that you married the right person?

What is the best evidence that your brand of steak sauce is the best?

What is the evidence for the best flavor of ice cream?   What is the best wine?

I am trying to get this to your level so you understand at least on that level that religion is about INTERNAL needs, not factual evidence.  You are just not getting this.

If you read a recipe for chocolate chip cookies, will you know that those cookies are the best cookies?

That is what you are doing.  You are saying that based on your research for chocolate chip cookies, we have no evidence that our chocolate chip cookies are the best.

YOU have to taste the cookies to feel the difference and even then others may disagree.   But it has notning to do with "evidence" especially evidence as a recipe.

The proof is in the pudding

A steak on a menu is not a steak sizzling on a plate, and there are MANY steak houses.  Which steak house is the best??

If that is the level you need expressed to get this, please at least get this.

Mormonism changes lives for those who understand it and LIVE IT.  

If you don't understand or LIVE IT, you are reading a recipe instead of tasting the cookies.

THAT is Alma 32

You are arguing why the cinnamon  is necessary and looking for evidence that cinnamon is required.  There is no such evidence without tasting the cookies.

I wouldn't like a brand of chocolate if the health department discovered it contained a small percentage of fecal matter.  I would probably get a divorce from my wife if I found out that she murdered someone prior to us meeting.  I would break off a business arrangement if my partner stole from me.  I would fire an employee who made up stories about their accomplishments in order to better their resume.  I may like the chocolate, may love my wife, may have a good business partner or employee.  However, newly discovered interpretations would change my mind.  If I thought that some organization, someone or something was the best thing for me, if I had some spiritual experience that told me that the fruit was good, etc., but subsequently discovered that the organization, person, etc. represented itself as more than it was, just to gain converts, I would change my thinking.  I would realize that maybe my so called spiritual experience was not from some outside force but was maybe from my desire to believe in something that wasn't there.  During the last real estate boom, people refused to believe that it could crash. The same thing happened with the dot com bubble.  People deceive and people are victims of deception.  Jim Jones had a lot of adherents who thought they had spiritual experiences and the same goes for David Koresh and his followers.  

As for your point about cinnamon, the church is the one selling the cinnamon as a necessary ingredient.  However, there is no cinnamon and claiming now that cinnamon wasn't ever necessary just because one cannot find it doesn't work for me.  There is no cinnamon and it is not a victim's fault for looking for the cinnamon the church promised was there.  Perhaps the absence of cinnamon shows an absence of a real spiritual experience?  The cookies are not desirable in this context.    

One more comparison to criminals and you will be removed from the thread.

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Thanks for the snide remarks at the end Mark.  Have you ever been a stake missionary or in charge of reactivating others?  Anyway, it must be tough being among the literalists in the LDS church.  They believe in literal truth and that they have it.  This where they choose to argue their cause.  They have the fundamentalist theory of truth that you reject and try to put on me for some reason.  It is to them with whom you should carry your beef.

I did not mean it that way and I apologize.

Yes just say I have been in charge of activating others and still am.  I have no beef with them or you, which I thought I made clear.  I am just saying that scientism is literalism, I am sorry I made it personal, genuinely

I won't bother you any more and I suggest you don't ask me questions since you do not seem to understand my answers anyway

 

Edited August 29, 2017 by mfbukowski

[SamuelTheLamanite]

On 8/22/2017 at 11:43 AM, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I find that to be extremely narrow-minded. However, I don't expect you or any other believer to entertain that maybe it isn't true and that is the reason people leave. You and others believe, so in the believing paradigm, non-belief must necessarily be for some other reason than a lack of logic or hard facts.

He left because of the negative stories he read on the internet, and a conversation he had with his friend from another ward. His belief that Mormonism is harmful has nothing to do with hard facts, it is just his confirmation bias. He forgot all of his positive experiences in church, and only remembers the negatives. He didn't really experience negatives, he is simply believing what others tell him.    

On 8/22/2017 at 9:48 AM, Bernard Gui said:

Using reason and logic without a moral compass can be very dangerous. Many have used them to evil ends.

Agree, but moral compass without "reason and logic" can be very dangerous as well, especially during special circumstances. But please let's not change the subject.   

Edited August 29, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Pete Ahlstrom]

4 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

He left because of the negative stories he read on the internet, and a conversation he had with his friend from another ward. His belief that Mormonism is harmful has nothing to do with hard facts, it is just his confirmation bias. He forgot all of his positive experiences in church, and only remembers the negatives. He didn't really experience negatives, he is simply believing what others tell him.    

Agree, but moral compass without "reason and logic" can be very dangerous as well, especially during special circumstances. But please let's not change the subject.   

Different people will obviously have different reasons for why they choose to leave. For me, it doesn't make sense, plain and simple.  So, I left.  For your friend it seems like it might be more than what you say? Although I don't know him or the situation.  However, in my experience people are complex and many factors lead to a decision. Perhaps he had thoughts of making his choice prior to the "negative" stories he read?

[SamuelTheLamanite]

18 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Different people will obviously have different reasons for why they choose to leave. For me, it doesn't make sense, plain and simple.  So, I left.  For your friend it seems like it might be more than what you say? Although I don't know him or the situation.  However, in my experience people are complex and many factors lead to a decision. Perhaps he had thoughts of making his choice prior to the "negative" stories he read?

All I know is that his friend convinced him that the church is harmful. 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

All I know is that his friend convinced him that the church is harmful. 

I don't think you are giving your cousin enough credit for his own independent thinking.  Sure, his friend gave him information to consider, but he chose to agree with his friend after analyzing what his friend had to say.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

3 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I don't think you are giving your cousin enough credit for his own independent thinking.  Sure, his friend gave him information to consider, but he chose to agree with his friend after analyzing what his friend had to say.

Maybe it was because of logic or hard facts, but he didn't tell me. He only told me negative personal stories he heard from others. 

[jkwilliams]

16 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Maybe it was because of logic or hard facts, but he didn't tell me. He only told me negative personal stories he heard from others. 

That doesn't make sense. Why would someone disregard their own experience because other people tell them "negative personal stories"? Oh, well. People leave for all kinds of reasons, and I suppose it's best to take them at their word for why they left. Heaven knows it's annoying to have someone tell you the reasons you left.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

That doesn't make sense. Why would someone disregard their own experience because other people tell them "negative personal stories"? Oh, well. People leave for all kinds of reasons, and I suppose it's best to take them at their word for why they left. Heaven knows it's annoying to have someone tell you the reasons you left.

His friend bad experiences at church. My cousin also read negative stories online. His friend and the internet affected him a lot. 

He always forget the good things about the church, he only focuses on the negatives. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, SamuelTheLamanite said:

His friend bad experiences at church. My cousin also read negative stories online. His friend and the internet affected him a lot. 

He always forget the good things about the church, he only focuses on the negatives. 

I can't speak for anyone else, but I know I focused on the negative for a while until I got it out of my system. I'm able to appreciate the positive impact the church has had in my life, and that's been a good thing. 

[SamuelTheLamanite]

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I can't speak for anyone else, but I know I focused on the negative for a while until I got it out of my system. I'm able to appreciate the positive impact the church has had in my life, and that's been a good thing. 

That is wonderful. In times of trial never forget your positive experiences at church, and never focus on the negatives so they won't affect your testimony.

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

His friend and the internet affected him a lot. 

He always forget the good things about the church, he only focuses on the negatives. 

It's possible that he hadn't been experiencing many 'good things' lately, too. I'm willing to be proved wrong, but I have a hard time believing that a person can converse with angels in the morning and then read something on the internet that night and conclude that his recent personal experiences were all in his head.

[Tacenda]

A lot of ex-Mormons leave because of unknown history and TBM's or apologists think it's their fault for not knowing the warts in church history. I just read this perfect analogy:

"Say you had a burrito and a salad today. You know your wife wouldn't be happy about the burrito so you say "I had a salad today". Then you put out pamphlets and lesson manuals that say you had a salad. People paint pictures of you eating a salad and you use them in your books and hang them in your buildings. You make a bunch of movies that only show the salad. You even put up a statue of you eating a salad in temple square. Then you say "If anyone had looked at my receipt from lunch they would have known I had more than a salad. I'm not hiding anything. And I never said I only had a salad".

Edited August 31, 2017 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

This is a documentary that was made about Grant just recently, since he has stage four Pancreatic cancer. I know that Grant isn't a favorite among a lot of people that are LDS apologists. He isn't perfect and probably has gotten things wrong. But I feel bad that his life is about to end, and I liked that even though he lost his testimony of the church he was able to keep his testimony of Jesus Christ, which is rare. I'm glad his mind is sharp at the end and hope he is able to put all of his affairs in order and have his family surround him. I do know that he is probably a big reason that many LDS left the church, they weren't able to sustain their testimonies after reading his book "An Insider's View of Mormonism".  I think Grant tried to stay in for as long as he could, until he was unable to and told to resign before he was ex'd. He did mention that when he asked what he got wrong in his book "Insider's View" to the leaders that wanted him to resign, he said they would never come back with an answer, either because they didn't have one or they never read his book. 

Edited September 1, 2017 by Tacenda

[Calm]

Or they just didn't want to debate him.