Dan Peterson can't understand apostates!

[jlamothe]

Hi malkie, hope all is well with you.

The reasons that were listed by the poster were rather shallow, in my opinion, yes. Obviously most folks that leave the church or religious practice in the rear view mirror do not become wicked in the sense of becoming depraved individuals. Will they adhere to all of the commandments and practices generally adhered to by active church members? Unlikely.

The poster I’m responding to didn’t mention anything having to do with deep doctrine and such…that’s why I used the word shallow to respond to their post. It sounded as though they simply wanted to do stuff they wanted to do without any outside authority dictating their actions.

Regards,
MG

I need an outside authority to dictate my actions? Wouldn't that make me a puppet?

For all the talk the church has given about agency, even those defending it admit that it dictates your actions.

[Jesse Pinkman]

Sic Et Non has decided to shadow ban my persona "Butthead" (shoutout to Brent Metcalfe and other fellow buttheads!) so I will be posting my comments here.

There is another reason why I have a hard time understanding those who claim to have been liberated by their apostasy from the Church, and by what I assume often to be their abandonment of their covenants, and their rejection of the commandments.

In my experience, more than a few have indicated that they felt perpetually guilty as members of the Church. Presumably they hadn’t been sufficiently loving or kind, or hadn’t been fully honest or hadn’t worked hard enough or had been late or angry or had failed in a duty.

In this regard, guilt is like pain. It’s an indicator that something is wrong. There are people who don’t feel pain. Does that sound wonderful? Well, consider: Such a person could be leaning against a stove with his hand on a hot burner and be entirely unaware of the problem until he smelled burning flesh. (There have, apparently, been such cases.) Such a person would walk on a twisted ankle, doing further and perhaps irreparable damage to it, and be unaware of a stomach pain that should take him as soon as possible to the emergency room. Seen in this way, both pain and guilt can be helpful indicators for navigating mortal life. To be without them would put us far out to sea.

I'll list a few reasons people might feel relief at leaving the church, that aren't due to them being liars, cheats, and thieves.

1) They no longer feel guilty for drinking coffee
2) They no longer feel guilty for drinking tea and diet coke
3) They no longer feel guilty for wearing underwear purchased from Target
4) They no longer feel guilty for working Sundays to provide for their family
5) They no longer feel guilty that they aren't giving 10% of their gross income when they can't afford it

In other words, it's possible the relief ex-Mormons feel is that of being able to join the rest of the rational civilized world, and leave the stupid rules of a high-demand religion behind.

They might even discover that there exist Christians who are ok with the evils of Coffee and Tea!!

Hi, Drumdude! I love the Butthead reference, by the way. Beevis and Butthead was my favorite show on MTV. (Yeah, I’m old. LOL)

I 100% agree with your list. I have felt guilt over all of those things. Particularly the part about coffee, tea, and finding Christians who drink coffee and tea with no compunction. I would add wine to that list.

I love pairing wine and beer with foods. I’m hoping to take a class on it.

I think that what should also be pointed out as far as Dan’s post is concerned, is exactly what people told him caused constant guilt; not feeling that they could ever be kind enough or work hard enough. These, in themselves, should give him concern, and I’m saddened that he doesn’t see that. The gospel is about being on the path toward perfection. We are not expected to achieve it during this life. It is something that will only happen when the savior returns in the second coming. If Church leaders spent more emphasis on not beating yourself up for not being perfect, it would go a long way in alleviating guilt, which, in his own analogy is synonymous with pain. Things need to change.

One of my pet peeves with the Church is how much time is required away from family to fulfill callings. I was serving 40 hours a week for the Church, in addition to 40 hours a week working. My ex-husband was the same. This is a dichotomy that goes directly against the gospel principles of family first. Everything is preached family first, but the reality is Church first, family second.

People eventually burn out. And feel guilty when they do!

According to Dan’s own words, this is what needs to be followed up on to avoid future members leaving.

(FYI—referring to Dr. Peterson as Dan is appropriate in my situation. Dan and I are friends, friends who agree to disagree on various topics. )

[jlamothe]

I was re-reading over this thread because I was trying to find a link that MG had posted that I didn't have the chance to read earlier, and I realize that there seems to be a disconnect between the two sides of this discussion.

Yes, people can feel a sense of relief when leaving the church, but in my experience, that feeling of relief is not the reason people leave.

When I left, that came much later. In fact, the transition was extremely unpleasant. There was absolutely no way I was going to risk my salvation over something so shallow as a cup of coffee, or underwear. I had been repeatedly taught that "even the very elect shall be deceived".

When I encountered things that challenged my testimony, I studied them out. I went looking for faithful answers. I was sure they had to be out there. I found several. The problem was, the more answers I found, the more questions cropped up. Still, I persisted. I had found answers to previous questions, and I had faith that in time I'd find answers to the new questions as well. My search was anything but shallow.

It wasn't until I started holding the evidence supporting the church to the same burden of proof that I held the evidence against it that I was able to leave.

Coffee and such are simply a perk now.

[MG 2.0]

Hi malkie, hope all is well with you.

The reasons that were listed by the poster were rather shallow, in my opinion, yes. Obviously most folks that leave the church or religious practice in the rear view mirror do not become wicked in the sense of becoming depraved individuals. Will they adhere to all of the commandments and practices generally adhered to by active church members? Unlikely.

The poster I’m responding to didn’t mention anything having to do with deep doctrine and such…that’s why I used the word shallow to respond to their post. It sounded as though they simply wanted to do stuff they wanted to do without any outside authority dictating their actions.

Regards,
MG

I need an outside authority to dictate my actions? Wouldn't that make me a puppet?

Jesus gave commandments. Prescriptions for a happy life in the here and now and the hereafter. Does following God’s law make us puppets or less free?

Regards,
MG

[Jesse Pinkman]

I was re-reading over this thread because I was trying to find a link that MG had posted that I didn't have the chance to read earlier, and I realize that there seems to be a disconnect between the two sides of this discussion.

Yes, people can feel a sense of relief when leaving the church, but in my experience, that feeling of relief is not the reason people leave.

When I left, that came much later. In fact, the transition was extremely unpleasant. There was absolutely no way I was going to risk my salvation over something so shallow as a cup of coffee, or underwear. I had been repeatedly taught that "even the very elect shall be deceived".

When I encountered things that challenged my testimony, I studied them out. I went looking for faithful answers. I was sure they had to be out there. I found several. The problem was, the more answers I found, the more questions cropped up. Still, I persisted. I had found answers to previous questions, and I had faith that in time I'd find answers to the new questions as well. My search was anything but shallow.

It wasn't until I started holding the evidence supporting the church to the same burden of proof that I held the evidence against it that I was able to leave.

Coffee and such are simply a perk now.

I agree with you. The feeling of relief is secondary. And in addition to folks like you and to some degree, myself, the feeling of constant guilt from not doing “enough” is very real and can lead members down a very dark path, which can, unfortunately, even lead to suicide.

It’s odd and ironic that Dan dismissed this even though he brought it up.

The Church needs to refocus on what it claims to be the heart of the gospel, Jesus Christ.

As a Jane Mormon myself, I disagree with numerous Church policies, and am basically extremely inactive. I do, however, still have a testimony of Jesus Christ. I simply have my own ideas on how best to honor Him.

[MG 2.0]

When I encountered things that challenged my testimony, I studied them out. I went looking for faithful answers. I was sure they had to be out there. I found several. The problem was, the more answers I found, the more questions cropped up. Still, I persisted. I had found answers to previous questions, and I had faith that in time I'd find answers to the new questions as well. My search was anything but shallow.

It wasn't until I started holding the evidence supporting the church to the same burden of proof that I held the evidence against it that I was able to leave.

Many folks have been on a similar journey with similar results. It’s true, when you start along the path of looking for answers to hard questions often that opens another door which leads to more questions. For me, this began back in the eighties and early nineties. Sooner or later one looks at the number of doors one has gone through and asks the BIG question: “Have I gone through too many doors for this all to be true or make sense?” And this is an individual decision we must all make . For some of us this question may be repeated multiple times as we continue to open and enter through more doors.

For me, at the end of the day, I find that I have ‘enough’ answers or at least reasonable hypothesis to carry myself along on a path of faith and obedience to the commandments, ordinances, and practices of the church and encouraging my family to do the same. As President Hinckley said, paraphrasing, the church is either what it says it is or it is the biggest religious fraud ever put out there. It’s either true or it’s not. I’m willing to take Pascal’s wager:

... a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas if God does exist, he stands to receive infinite gains.

I can’t blame those folks that are unwilling to take that wager. The world is full of pleasure palaces of one sort or another and fleshy appetites to be fed. The natural man has a very strong voice of reason in our heads.

And for the church to tell us we shouldn’t drink coffee or consume alcohol and adhere to certain moral/ethical practices? And wear a certain type of underwear? That can be a bit much to ask unless we’ve made the LDS version of Pascal’s wager. And it’s not an easy wager to make, granted, with all the doors to open and enter along the way that can lead to a loss of faith. Faith is not easy to come by. It’s a lifetime of work for those that choose that path.

And it’s Jesus Christ that shows us the way forward.

Regards,
MG

[jlamothe]

When I encountered things that challenged my testimony, I studied them out. I went looking for faithful answers. I was sure they had to be out there. I found several. The problem was, the more answers I found, the more questions cropped up. Still, I persisted. I had found answers to previous questions, and I had faith that in time I'd find answers to the new questions as well. My search was anything but shallow.

It wasn't until I started holding the evidence supporting the church to the same burden of proof that I held the evidence against it that I was able to leave.

Many folks have been on a similar journey with similar results. It’s true, when you start along the path of looking for answers to hard questions often that opens another door which leads to more questions. For me, this began back in the eighties and early nineties. Sooner or later one looks at the number of doors one has gone through and asks the BIG question: “Have I gone through too many doors for this all to be true or make sense?” And this is an individual decision we must all make . For some of us this question may be repeated multiple times as we continue to open and enter through more doors.

For me, at the end of the day, I find that I have ‘enough’ answers or at least reasonable hypothesis to carry myself along on a path of faith and obedience to the commandments, ordinances, and practices of the church and encouraging my family to do the same. As President Hinckley said, paraphrasing, the church is either what it says it is or it is the biggest religious fraud ever put out there. It’s either true or it’s not. I’m willing to take Pascal’s wager:

... a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas if God does exist, he stands to receive infinite gains.

I can’t blame those folks that are unwilling to take that wager. The world is full of pleasure palaces of one sort or another and fleshy appetites to be fed. The natural man has a very strong voice of reason in our heads.

And for the church to tell us we shouldn’t drink coffee or consume alcohol and adhere to certain moral/ethical practices? And wear a certain type of underwear? That can be a bit much to ask unless we’ve made the LDS version of Pascal’s wager. And it’s not an easy wager to make, granted, with all the doors to open and enter along the way that can lead to a loss of faith. Faith is not easy to come by. It’s a lifetime of work for those that choose that path.

And it’s Jesus Christ that shows us the way forward.

Regards,
MG

I agree with you that we all need to decide for ourselves.

In regards to the assertion that the most rational proposition is to operate from the assumption that God exists, I have to ask: which God? If I'm abiding fully by the precepts of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, wouldn't I just be making Allah angrier and angrier?

The most rational option is by definition the one that involves the fewest assumptions. I look at as much evidence as I can, weigh it as objectively as possible, and behave accordingly.

My opinions are subject to change when I am presented with new evidence.

[MG 2.0]

Many folks have been on a similar journey with similar results. It’s true, when you start along the path of looking for answers to hard questions often that opens another door which leads to more questions. For me, this began back in the eighties and early nineties. Sooner or later one looks at the number of doors one has gone through and asks the BIG question: “Have I gone through too many doors for this all to be true or make sense?” And this is an individual decision we must all make . For some of us this question may be repeated multiple times as we continue to open and enter through more doors.

For me, at the end of the day, I find that I have ‘enough’ answers or at least reasonable hypothesis to carry myself along on a path of faith and obedience to the commandments, ordinances, and practices of the church and encouraging my family to do the same. As President Hinckley said, paraphrasing, the church is either what it says it is or it is the biggest religious fraud ever put out there. It’s either true or it’s not. I’m willing to take Pascal’s wager:



I can’t blame those folks that are unwilling to take that wager. The world is full of pleasure palaces of one sort or another and fleshy appetites to be fed. The natural man has a very strong voice of reason in our heads.

And for the church to tell us we shouldn’t drink coffee or consume alcohol and adhere to certain moral/ethical practices? And wear a certain type of underwear? That can be a bit much to ask unless we’ve made the LDS version of Pascal’s wager. And it’s not an easy wager to make, granted, with all the doors to open and enter along the way that can lead to a loss of faith. Faith is not easy to come by. It’s a lifetime of work for those that choose that path.

And it’s Jesus Christ that shows us the way forward.

Regards,
MG

I agree with you that we all need to decide for ourselves.

In regards to the assertion that the most rational proposition is to operate from the assumption that God exists, I have to ask: which God? If I'm abiding fully by the precepts of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, wouldn't I just be making Allah angrier and angrier?

The most rational option is by definition the one that involves the fewest assumptions. I look at as much evidence as I can, weigh it as objectively as possible, and behave accordingly.

My opinions are subject to change when I am presented with new evidence.

Which God? The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The same God who sent His Only Begotten Son to earth as our Savior and Redeemer.

Concerned about making Allah angry? You may have misplaced your concern.

Allah, the Moon-God
Allah is not the Jehovah of the Old Testament. In fact, Allah is a version of the Moon-god, a pagan god in Arabia who was worshipped during pre-Islamic times. And that is why the Crescent moon is the symbol of Islam, and the month-long Ramadan fasting begins and ends with the crescent moon.
The evidence of this can be found in the extensive archeological digs in the Middle East over the last 100 years. A temple of the Moon-god was excavated in Ur by Sir Leonard Woolley. The examples of moon worship which he found can now be seen in the British Museum. In the 1950s, a temple to the Moon-god was excavated at Hazer in Palestine. Two idols of the Moon-god were found. Each was a statue of a man seated on a throne with a crescent moon carved on his chest.
Also in the 1950s, archeologists excavated sites at Qataban, Timna, and Marib. Thousands of inscriptions from walls and rocks in Northern Arabia have also been collected. Reliefs and votive bowls used in worship of the "daughters of Allah" have also been discovered. The three daughters, al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat, are sometimes depicted together with Allah the Moon-god represented by a crescent moon above them. The archeological evidence demonstrates that the dominant religion of Arabia was the cult of the Moon-god.
The oldest name of the Moon-God was Sin, of Sumerian origin. Hence, Sinai, or the wilderness of Sin. While the Arabs worshipped 360 gods at the Kabah in Mecca, the Mood-god was the chief deity. The Moon-god was also called Il or Ilah, which eventually became Allah.

https://chalcedon.edu/magazine/the-origin-of-allah

https://christianity.stackexchange.com/ ... sect#14636

Regards,
MG

[jlamothe]

Concerned about making Allah angry? You may have misplaced your concern.

Not particularly. I have no more reason to believe in Allah than I do to believe in the god of Abraham.

That really wasn't my point though. I was just staying that the Pascal's wager argument works equally well for both.

In fact, as someone earlier pointed out, Mormonism has this weird reverse Pascal's wager thing going on, where even the Telestial kingdom is supposed to be better than the world we now live in.

[malkie]

I need an outside authority to dictate my actions? Wouldn't that make me a puppet?

Jesus gave commandments. Prescriptions for a happy life in the here and now and the hereafter. Does following God’s law make us puppets or less free?

Regards,
MG

Absolutely - when god does not exist, and men make up "laws", claiming that they are from god.
Also, if god did exist, and men make up "laws", claiming that they are from god.