You guys are still at it! (why am I not surprised?)

[Gadianton]

MG,

Contrary to your response to me, you most certainly did find fault with four of our board members:

The PP's, Scratch's, Bond's, Shades of this board have issues because they have not been able to move beyond a primary/seminary outlook...if you can call it thinking...They are very simplistic and naïve...If he doesn't conform to their image, then he doesn't exist.

wow! You just decided they they are all atheists based on your own psychological speculations! I know for a fact that two aren't.

And the irony here is supreme: you fault them for being simplistic seminary-level thinkers who dropped God because God doesn't conform to the "primary/seminary" version of God, and then in your follow post today, you insist that they aren't allowed to be "nuanced" in their thinking about God -- that they MUST conform to a belief in God with a physical body, looks like a man, can move around and play bball. In other words, you insist that they adhere to the simplistic primary/seminary beliefs about God! LOL!

And so it is you all along who can't shake your primary/seminary outlook whereas Shades and Scratch (and possibly the others) have dropped the extreme anthropomorphism of their primary days and moved on to a mature faith.

You're stuck in stage 2, MG:

Stage 2 – "Mythic-Literal" faith (mostly in school children), is characterized by persons have a strong belief in the justice and reciprocity of the universe, and their deities are almost always anthropomorphic. During this time metaphors and symbolic language are often misunderstood and are taken literally.

[IWMP]

I indulged in the antimormon literature that my patriarchal blessing warned me about and more. Was elbow deep into reading about freemasons and everything I could find. And yet... That's not the turning point for me.

So no one here is going to convince anyone else how to live their lives unless they want to be convinced.

If I'm not prying too much...what was the turning point?

Regards,
MG

I often overshare. And then regret lol. But I don't mind sharing. Probably have before.

The quick answer, seeing the members turn on another member who should have had their support was the last thing that was like, ok, why am I here. But there were a few things that build up to it. I probably would still go to be honest if it was close by but I don't raise my children as Mormons and I wouldn't want to.

There was a woman, who converted and within the first couple of years after she converted she helped convert lots of people. There was a long run of baptisms every week and I personally believe her fellowship helped. She did so much missionary work. She wasn't your typical Mormon but I liked her a lot. Her son commited a crime which he went to jail for. In some ways you can sort of take other factors into consideration and maybe he shouldn't have gone to adult jail at 15 but none the less, it is what it is. She was shunned. And not just disfellowshipped. You could feel it. She left the church. It was not her fault. She went from being very popular and well liked to everyone looking at her and talking about her like she was filth.
These people were not Christian. I'm not even sure it was human. Her son is now dead.
I know the members like to say the people aren't perfect but the church is. It doesn't take perfection to realise that a person is suffering enough without being blamed for something she had no part in.

[MG 2.0]

Is there no positive things about having been LDS? I think the network of people, the love I felt, the friends, the people who gave me a second family and had shown me what normal (more normal than mine) families look like. It's hard to make friends in the world but the way church members fellowship, makes having friends easier, yeah, they all disappeared when I got with a non member and it probably was all fake in the end up, it's still good memories for me. And linger longer was just awesome. For me EFY was borderline traumatising but it opened the doors to me realising I was different and seeking help.

I don’t think Mormonism is as bad as Scientology. I think they’re on a spectrum, towards the end where the religion is high demand/cultish.

I think there are plenty of things that are perfectly good in Mormonism. But I don’t have Catholics shunning me for not going to church. And they don’t constantly bombard me with messages that they’re worried for my immortal soul.

My overall concern with MG is that he thinks we’re just here to trash beliefs. I don’t think that’s correct, and I think it ignores the lived experiences of ex-Mormons.

High demand isn't equivalent to cultish. I don't think you meant to say that...but the / mark seems to portray that the two are joined at the hip. Religions, as I'm sure you know, that don't make 'asks' of their adherents tend to lose momentum over time. We see that happening before our eyes. High demand does not = bad.

I'm happy we agree that Scientology and the CofJCofLDS have their differences. The fact that the LDS church has ordinances, covenants, and rituals does not make it a cult. Members of the church are not asked to hand their brains in at the door of baptism.

I'm also happy that we agree that there is much good in the CofJCofLDS and the work that the church does and the light that members show forth to the world in their loving actions and humanitarian efforts. Members of the church that serve missions simply want to bring the light of the gospel into the hearts and minds of those that choose to accept the doctrines and teachings of the church. Nothing wrong with that.

I do have to disagree as to why many on this board are here. I think that bashing/trashing the LDS Church and its leaders is a primary reason folks are here. Why do I say that? Well, look at the lion's share of the threads that have been posted and responded to on this newer version of the board and the one that existed before this one.

It's readily apparent why most people are here. They don't like the LDS Church and what it stands for. They don't like the prophet Joseph Smith. They don't like temples and diss what goes on there. They promote that some bad actors (pedophiles and miscreants) represent the whole church and the actions of its members as a whole.

Silly. Dumb, in fact.

This board is not just a community of people that hang out to discuss the weather or sports or the latest social trends and fashions. No, this board has a purpose. Even though it is purported to be a place of discussion for Mormons and nonbelievers of all stripes, it's really not...at this point. It could be, but it's not. Why? Because of some folks that consistently 'post bomb' or thread bomb conversations that people are having that actually have some interest to those involved. We could agree to disagree, like you and I do, but alas...that's not what happens. You have people like Doc, Wang and others that are out to intimidate and post silly memes and pictures rather than have any type of serious discussion.

We have Marcus who is consistently trolling me, for one, with the idea/motive of squelching free speech. She knows what she's doing but won't admit to it. If others were to respond anonymously my bet is they would agree. She's more or less a nuisance to having a conversation.

We can...could...even admit it when we don't know the full story as I did in response to Shulem and we move on without the associated sacrilegious and disrespectful language that is used towards Jesus. That's not necessary. To many, including me, He is the all-important creator of all things and the Saviour of mankind. If you don't believe that, fine. But why promote nasty memes and pictures and foul language towards Him or the church that bears His name?

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

I think a readily available remedy is to have these discussions in the Celestial forum, where you’re not allowed to discuss in bad faith. I don’t think Marcus and Shulem would be able to criticize you in the same way there - at least I hope they wouldn’t.

The only downside is that it doesn’t seem to get as many eyeballs on the threads there.

[MG 2.0]

MG,

Contrary to your response to me, you most certainly did find fault with four of our board members:

The PP's, Scratch's, Bond's, Shades of this board have issues because they have not been able to move beyond a primary/seminary outlook...if you can call it thinking...They are very simplistic and naïve...If he doesn't conform to their image, then he doesn't exist.

wow! You just decided they they are all atheists based on your own psychological speculations! I know for a fact that two aren't.

And the irony here is supreme: you fault them for being simplistic seminary-level thinkers who dropped God because God doesn't conform to the "primary/seminary" version of God, and then in your follow post today, you insist that they aren't allowed to be "nuanced" in their thinking about God -- that they MUST conform to a belief in God with a physical body, looks like a man, can move around and play bball. In other words, you insist that they adhere to the simplistic primary/seminary beliefs about God! LOL!

And so it is you all along who can't shake your primary/seminary outlook whereas Shades and Scratch (and possibly the others) have dropped the extreme anthropomorphism of their primary days and moved on to a mature faith.

You're stuck in stage 2, MG:

Stage 2 – "Mythic-Literal" faith (mostly in school children), is characterized by persons have a strong belief in the justice and reciprocity of the universe, and their deities are almost always anthropomorphic. During this time metaphors and symbolic language are often misunderstood and are taken literally.

If it's not clear, I do find fault with the beliefs that some board members have in regard to non-acceptance of the message of the restoration through the prophet Joseph Smith. That being said, and I've said it before, I would guess that in real life most of the folks here are decent and loving human beings that love their families and/or significant other.

But here you go again. Because you personally don't believe in a corporeal God you seem to think this is a "simplistic" belief of Mormonism. Is it? That is indeed the million-dollar question. But to tell a Mormon theologian (not me!) that their beliefs are "primary/seminary" level beliefs without having arrived at those beliefs through some pretty deep (understatement) investigation just isn't fair. I think you know that.

I'm familiar with Fowler's stages. Years ago, I thought MUCH about how I fit into the stages of faith. No, I didn't end up at stage two. You...again...are misunderstanding where I'm at. I can't convince you otherwise. You have a firm belief that if I'm not where you're at that I am somehow in a place that is less/behind where you think you're at.

In other words, you've arrived, and I haven't. From your perspective I'm stuck in place since I've chosen to believe in and remain an active and believing member of the LDS church. I see THAT as being stuck in place.

If you see this as just another example of "finding fault" then so be it. I'm sure you're a great guy but I simply think you're mistaken in the path you've chosen. You can say the same towards me and I will not take offense.

But do we have to do the rehash after rehash after rehash? I feel like I've said most of this before and that I've answered and responded to similar, if not the same, criticisms and complaints before.

It does get rather old and a bit tiresome. But that's part of doing missionary work.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I think a readily available remedy is to have these discussions in the Celestial forum, where you’re not allowed to discuss in bad faith. I don’t think Marcus and Shulem would be able to criticize you in the same way there - at least I hope they wouldn’t.

The only downside is that it doesn’t seem to get as many eyeballs on the threads there.

I put up with them. I do wish that Shulem wasn't so disrespectful towards that which others find sacred though. But nothing is going to change that, I do believe.

And Marcus? What can I say that I haven't already said?

Regards,
MG

[Gadianton]

But here you go again. Because you personally don't believe in a corporeal God you seem to think this is a "simplistic" belief of Mormonism. Is it?

well, um, that's what your guy Fowler seems to think.

[MG 2.0]

But here you go again. Because you personally don't believe in a corporeal God you seem to think this is a "simplistic" belief of Mormonism. Is it?

well, um, that's what your guy Fowler seems to think.

Stage 4 (Individuative-Reflective Faith) involves critically examining previously held beliefs and taking personal responsibility for faith. A belief in a corporeal God could persist here if it were reexamined and integrated into a more reflective worldview.

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

well, um, that's what your guy Fowler seems to think.

Stage 4 (Individuative-Reflective Faith) involves critically examining previously held beliefs and taking personal responsibility for faith. A belief in a corporeal God could persist here if it were reexamined and integrated into a more reflective worldview.

Regards,
MG

What about a man who lives in the clouds and throws down lightning bolts? Could that too be integrated in? I think the point is that it’s a clear regression towards earlier simplistic religion.

[MG 2.0]

Stage 4 (Individuative-Reflective Faith) involves critically examining previously held beliefs and taking personal responsibility for faith. A belief in a corporeal God could persist here if it were reexamined and integrated into a more reflective worldview.

Regards,
MG

What about a man who lives in the clouds and throws down lightning bolts? Could that too be integrated in?

I don't believe so. Is that something you could integrate into a logical and cohesive worldview? If not, why does that disengage you from a competing view of a creator God that has a plan of salvation and progress for mankind? Just this one thing ought to disengage you from believing in Zeus who had severe limitations compared to the God of all creation.

I think the point is that it’s a clear regression towards earlier simplistic religion.

Wasn't monotheism and a belief in one God a step in the right direction from believing in many gods, Zeus, etc.?

In fact, it seems as though if there is just one God vs. many, this true God would manifest himself and set things straight now and then. Also, if you're going to pick one God vs. many gods you have a smaller 'choice group' (about seven to choose from nowadays) to choose from than if you go with Zeus and all of these other guys and gals:

Ancient Greek religion: Believed in multiple gods and goddesses.

Norse mythology: Worshipped various gods known as the Aesir and Vanir.

Hinduism: Often considered polytheistic, with a vast pantheon of deities.

Traditional African religions: Many recognize numerous gods and goddesses.

Shinto: Japanese religion with multiple kami (gods or spirits).

Wicca: Modern pagan religion venerating multiple deities.

Taoism: Chinese religion honoring multiple gods and goddesses.

I think that's why Mormons have an affinity for the Jews and Judaism in some respects. With the caveat that Mormonism looks at the Godhead as a 'step up' from the Judaism.

Jesus straightened that out.

If you believe Him.

Regards,
MG