Question for former mormons

[A New Dawn]

It is interesting that you have to resort to words like rant. I asked for logical argumentation. The fact that you are resorting to emotional rhetoric from the outset seems to indicate that this request will not be respected. I did not present a rant, I presented an argument. Please address this, and avoid use of inflammatory rhetoric.



More logical fallacies, in this case a Strawman. I never said the above, you're attempting to put words in my mouth to have a target to attack. I know of a few LDS members who left the Church over what they considered legitimate theological issues. Whether or not the former LDS members who post here are in that category remains to be seen.



The question was based on a false premise.



An odd accusation. Now, can you present a rational rebuttal without the logical fallacies and argumentative errors?

I don't have to make a rebuttal. Don't you see that you are doing exactly what the OP stated? You are "accus[ing] former mormons of all kinds of less than honest behavior" merely by posting this type of response in this thread.

 

[OmahaLDS]

I don't have to make a rebuttal.

No, but your inability to do so makes your stance very, very weak. This is a debate forum, if you are unable to support your opinions, why are you trying to debate?

Don't you see that you are doing exactly what the OP stated?

No.

You are "accus[ing] former mormons of all kinds of less than honest behavior" merely by posting this type of response in this thread.

Really? Very well, I will await your argumentative support for this assertion. I assume you can provide it, this is a debate forum after all, you are the person who characterized the forum after all.

 

[pwsoldier]

Because it is a direct response to Wrigley's comment...

"current mormons accuse former mormons of all kinds of less than honest behavior. From purposely misrepresenting mormon doctrine, to not being honest about experiences they have experienced to even not ever truly understanding what they were taught or told during their time in mormonism."

The criticism that Ex-LDS misrepresent doctrine, did not understand the doctrine, did not understand what they were taught or told during their time in the LDS Church is an entirely valid criticism.

While that may be true in some cases, it's ultimately a very sweeping generalization. And it fails to account for individual perspective. Those of us who left the Church have different backgrounds and different reasons for leaving, but it's safe to say that we all have one thing in common, we all believed in the Church to some degree. Now we don't, and we view the Church and its doctrines a lot differently than we previously did, because we're on the outside looking in. Yes, some apostates (probably many, in fact) allow bitterness and resentment to prevent them from being objective, but is the same not true of the faithful? There is subjectivity on both sides, and so there are very different perceptions of the Church and its doctrines. That does not mean, however, that either side is being dishonest.

Simply being LDS does not convey understanding, theological comprehension, or even the most remote argumentative support.

Agreed, but that doesn't mean that those who fall away did so because they didn't fully comprehend the doctrine. Personally, I had a very solid grasp on Church doctrine when I was an active member, but I lacked the faith to believe in it, and so I left. The same is likely true of people like Moodshadow, who was an active member for 40 years. Understanding the doctrine and believing it are two different things. It's easy to say that apostates never truly believed because true believers don't fall away. And while that may be true in some cases (though false in most, I'd imagine), it fails to account for the knowledge and understanding that people gain while they are in the Church. You can learn volumes about the Church without ever having an inkling of a testimony of the validity of the teachings. Different people, different situations. You can't make generalizations about people who leave the Church.

Wrigley begins his OP with a series of accusations that are actually valid and legitimate. The rest of the OP is an invitation to appeal to emotion, which makes no difference in logical construction.

Everyone who posts here, believers and non- alike, does so because of how they feel about the Church. The reasons for posting here are deeply rooted in emotion for many people, so it makes perfect sense for Wrigley to try to bring those emotions out into the open in an attempt to gauge peoples' motives.

 

[OmahaLDS]

While that may be true in some cases, it's ultimately a very sweeping generalization.

Actually it is true in every case and is not general at all. Simply being an LDS member does not convey anything.

And it fails to account for individual perspective.

Individual perspective is irrelevant.

Those of us who left the Church have different backgrounds and different reasons for leaving, but it's safe to say that we all have one thing in common, we all believed in the Church to some degree.

I know that is not true. I know plenty of people who joined the Church to make a spouse happy. I am aware of people who lied to get Temple Recommends for their wedding, because it was important to a spouse. There used to be a podcast by a guy who had a website called josephlied.com or something like that where he admitted he lied to get the recommend for the wedding. It was important to his wife, so he lied. I do not know if the spouse know he lied or not. The podcast may still be available, I do not know.

But membership does not automatically involve belief.

Now we don't, and we view the Church and its doctrines a lot differently than we previously did, because we're on the outside looking in. Yes, some apostates (probably many, in fact) allow bitterness and resentment to prevent them from being objective, but is the same not true of the faithful? There is subjectivity on both sides, and so there are very different perceptions of the Church and its doctrines. That does not mean, however, that either side is being dishonest.

I have not commented on honesty, only on the false assumption that membership grants authority.

Agreed, but that doesn't mean that those who fall away did so because they didn't fully comprehend the doctrine.

And it doesn't mean they did understand the doctrine. Which is what I have said. An accusation that someone did not understand doctrine is not irrelevant because someone was a member. It is in many cases a valid criticism.

Personally, I had a very solid grasp on Church doctrine when I was an active member, but I lacked the faith to believe in it, and so I left. The same is likely true of people like Moodshadow, who was an active member for 40 years. Understanding the doctrine and believing it are two different things. It's easy to say that apostates never truly believed because true believers don't fall away. And while that may be true in some cases (though false in most, I'd imagine), it fails to account for the knowledge and understanding that people gain while they are in the Church. You can learn volumes about the Church without ever having an inkling of a testimony of the validity of the teachings. Different people, different situations. You can't make generalizations about people who leave the Church.

And I have not made generalizations at all.

Everyone who posts here, believers and non- alike, does so because of how they feel about the Church.

And that is a very, very bad thing. People should post in a debate forum because the actually know something about the Church, but knowledge is not a prerequisite here. This is bad because people who feel, but lack the knowledge to back their feelings, are dangerous.

Negative feeling without knowledge is prejudice, and I think there is a significant amount of prejudice here.

The reasons for posting here are deeply rooted in emotion for many people, so it makes perfect sense for Wrigley to try to bring those emotions out into the open in an attempt to gauge peoples' motives.

I disagree completely.

 

[Wrigley]

This thread has become interesting. And when I look at some other posts on other threads, pretty accurate in its observations.

 

[OmahaLDS]

This thread has become interesting. And when I look at some other posts on other threads, pretty accurate in its observations.

Let's see some evidentiary support.

 

[pwsoldier]

Simply being an LDS member does not convey anything.

Agreed. However, it's naive to assume that every apostate misunderstands and misrepresents doctrine, which is what you seem to be implying. Some do, some don't.

Individual perspective is irrelevant.

How so? When you have two people arguing over doctrine, I think perspective becomes very important, especially if one is a former believer and the other is still faithful. Is the active member's viewpoint more accurate because he/she hasn't abandoned the doctrine? Or is the apostate's viewpoint more valid because he/she isn't basing arguments on the subjective bias of a testimony? I think the answer to both questions is no. Both arguments can easily have merit, and you have to look at the perspective that each is coming from in order to determine where the best argument lies.

I know that is not true. I know plenty of people who joined the Church to make a spouse happy. I am aware of people who lied to get Temple Recommends for their wedding, because it was important to a spouse. There used to be a podcast by a guy who had a website called josephlied.com or something like that where he admitted he lied to get the recommend for the wedding. It was important to his wife, so he lied. I do not know if the spouse know he lied or not. The podcast may still be available, I do not know.

But membership does not automatically involve belief.

You got me there. Nice catch.

And that is a very, very bad thing. People should post in a debate forum because the actually know something about the Church, but knowledge is not a prerequisite here. This is bad because people who feel, but lack the knowledge to back their feelings, are dangerous.

Agreed. Knowledge is important, but it's nice to know peoples' motives as well. Motives are driven by emotion, and that's what Wrigley is trying to gauge here.

Negative feeling without knowledge is prejudice, and I think there is a significant amount of prejudice here.

I agree that there's a good deal of prejudice here, which is why I haven't posted here in a very long time and probably won't again once this thread has run its course.

I disagree with the notion that knowledge and prejudice are mutually exclusive, though I'll admit that that seems to be the case much of the time. As I said before, there are varying levels of knowledge and understanding to be found among apostates. There are opponents of the LDS church who know the doctrine very well, and there are those who don't.

I disagree completely.

You're certainly entitled to disagree with the premise of this discussion, but keep in mind that the question posed in the OP wasn't directed at you.

 

[Wrigley]

Let's see some evidentiary support.

 

[angelmom01]

(1) The fact that this is a "debate" forum doesn't mean that every single thread/topic posted has to be approached as one.

(2) I know for a fact that some of the things that I was taught by the church are either no longer taught or are now denied, whether it's because those things are now labeled as purely "speculation" (that, apparently no one should have paid attention to or taken too seriously) or something that the church now says "we don't know enough about it" (so we don't really talk about that anymore) so "it was never official doctrine" (so if you claim that members now or ever "believed" it as "a truth" you are lying and it's just simply "your" fault and not the church's). I've even been told that some things were "never" taught or believed by "anyone" in the church (even though many ex-members from many different locations were taught and believed the same thing. So the OP was quite accurate in stating that former members are accused of not knowing what they are talking about, about not properly understanding church doctrine or of just making things up. The thing is, it's only a problem once you leave the church. No one cares when you are a member if you have misunderstood something or if you have put faith in something that was "only speculative" or if you do (or used to) believe something that was taught a long time ago but isn't taught anymore (and might now be denied).

(3) I do not need to have an in-depth understanding of every LDS doctrine there is in its fullest detail to be able to recognize that the ones that I do know something about are un-biblical. Exactly how many errors in doctrine does it take to prove that the church is not what it claims to be?

 

[OmahaLDS]

Agreed. However, it's naive to assume that every apostate misunderstands and misrepresents doctrine, which is what you seem to be implying. Some do, some don't.

Not at all. I only said that membership does not convey understanding.

How so? When you have two people arguing over doctrine, I think perspective becomes very important, especially if one is a former believer and the other is still faithful. Is the active member's viewpoint more accurate because he/she hasn't abandoned the doctrine? Or is the apostate's viewpoint more valid because he/she isn't basing arguments on the subjective bias of a testimony? I think the answer to both questions is no. Both arguments can easily have merit, and you have to look at the perspective that each is coming from in order to determine where the best argument lies.

I think it is a matter of professionalism. My favorite Biblical scholar was a Catholic Priest (no longer living, hence the past tense). He was a professional, however, and his works were based on his professionalism, not his faith. Many LDS scholars are professionals in their respective fields. Their works within LDS studies are paralleled by work within fields that are related to similar subjects. So, I think it is possible to address issues without bias, but it takes a dedication to the subject matter and study for the sake of study. I tend to take that stance to my study of LDS theology.

I think the problem comes that many, many LDS critics are in a "ministry" which lacks the rigor that academic pursuit entails. Because someone feels called to preach to Mormons does not convey any real understanding of the complex nuances of the subject matter, and therein is a significant problem.

Agreed. Knowledge is important, but it's nice to know peoples' motives as well. Motives are driven by emotion, and that's what Wrigley is trying to gauge here.

I think Wrigley's OP is using emotion to hide flaws. Just because some feels passionately about helping the poor deluded Mormons see the truth, or hates the LDS Church with the intensity of a supernova, does nothing to ensure that person is educated and knowledgeable. I could care less what the emotion is and more about how much study was put into the opinion.

I disagree with the notion that knowledge and prejudice are mutually exclusive

I cannot think of someone who was very well educated about a people, and similarly prejudiced against those people. Educated people can be prejudiced, a Nobel Physicist could hate the Irish. I cannot think someone who studied the Irish, studied Irish culture, literature, cuisine, etc... could be prejudiced against the Irish.

though I'll admit that that seems to be the case much of the time. As I said before, there are varying levels of knowledge and understanding to be found among apostates. There are opponents of the LDS church who know the doctrine very well, and there are those who don't.

I tend to agree.

You're certainly entitled to disagree with the premise of this discussion, but keep in mind that the question posed in the OP wasn't directed at you.

The OP was poorly thought out.

 

[Moodshadow]

The OP was poorly thought out.

Lucky for you, then, that it was not addressed to active members, huh?

 

[OmahaLDS]

Lucky for you, then, that it was not addressed to active members, huh?

A comment does not need to be addressed to me for me to recognize the errors and flaws. But it helps to ignore a critique by placing the person making the critique on the outside of the group. As an outsider the critique can then be ignored. It does not hide the flaw, though.

I suppose it is more important to be united and wrong?

 

[A New Dawn]

A comment does not need to be addressed to me for me to recognize the errors and flaws. But it helps to ignore a critique by placing the person making the critique on the outside of the group. As an outsider the critique can then be ignored. It does not hide the flaw, though.

I suppose it is more important to be united and wrong?

You seem to be connecting the first part of the OP with the second part of the post in ways they weren't meant to be connected. The first part of the OP is merely an observation that was made by observing the discussions over time. The second part, only, is the question that is being asked. So how can asking our reasons for posting be wrong about anything? That, in itself, doesn't make any sense.

 

[OmahaLDS]

You seem to be connecting the first part of the OP with the second part of the post in ways they weren't meant to be connected. The first part of the OP is merely an observation that was made by observing the discussions over time. The second part, only, is the question that is being asked. So how can asking our reasons for posting be wrong about anything? That, in itself, doesn't make any sense.

Because it does not matter. Keep in mind that this is not a fellowship forum.

 

[A New Dawn]

Because it does not matter. Keep in mind that this is not a fellowship forum.

And ............................................ what does that have to do with anything?

 

[Ran77]

Because it does not matter. Keep in mind that this is not a fellowship forum.

I have been reminded of that very thing quite often.

 

[RufustheRed]

(1) The fact that this is a "debate" forum doesn't mean that every single thread/topic posted has to be approached as one.

Alas, Christie, this is NOT a debate forum. It is a discussion forum. Please see my new tread.

Rufus

 

[A New Dawn]

Alas, Christie, this is NOT a debate forum. It is a discussion forum. Please see my new tread.

Rufus

That's correct. This used to be part of the Discussion and Debate section of the board, but there has been no debate here for many years. It's pretty sad.

 

[Ran77]

Alas, Christie, this is NOT a debate forum. It is a discussion forum.

That is not true. It is defined as a debate forum. We are reminded constantly that it is a debate forum. And when I have requested that we have discussion instead of arguments our critics tell me to post that thread in the LDS Fellowship forum.

As defined by the words and actions of our critics - this is a debate forum.

 

[RufustheRed]

That is not true. It is defined as a debate forum. We are reminded constantly that it is a debate forum. And when I have requested that we have discussion instead of arguments our critics tell me to post that thread in the LDS Fellowship forum.

As defined by the words and actions of our critics - this is a debate forum.

I am going to try to find out what is going on here. One place says one thing and in another it says something else. There IS a difference between discuss and debate, IMO.

Rufus