Doctrinal descriptions of former believers

[_cacheman]

This thread was inspired by something that Beastie said concerning the divide between current and former LDS:

If healing is ever going to occur between these two communities, the church will have to take the step of ceasing their teachings about apostates being inspired by satan, lazy, wanting to sin, etc.

Reading through the scriptures, lesson books, and GC talks, it's not too difficult to find verses or statements reinforcing negative stereotypes of those who leave the faith. I've met LDS online and in real life who realize that these stereotypes can be damaging to relationships, and have expressed that they feel that is is possible for sincere, honest, and good people to simply see things differently and move on from the church. I am interested in understanding how they came to this realization, and in particular, if there is any doctrinal support for this way of thinking.

I would like to see scriptures, talks, etc. about those who leave the faith which don't maintain the negative stereotypical image of why one would lose faith. Please post some examples. In fact, please post any positive descriptions found in the scriptures or GA talks about people who have left the faith. Thank you.

cacheman

[_Sethbag]

To be honest, I don't see any rationale for believing there's anything in it at all for the LDS church regarding "healing the rift" and drawing the church and its apostates together. That's sort of like arguing that human beings need to find a way to have a healthier and closer relationship with cyanide, or that we ought to find a better way to bring children and razor blades together.

I think the reason the doctrinal or scriptural teachings regarding the church and its apostates is one of rejection and hostility, or regarding the apostates as deceived sinners who are under the control of Satan, is because that attitude is the one that best suits the institutional needs of the believers in insulating the believers from subversive ideas and people. With the exception of groups like Heaven's Gate or Peoples' Temple, I believe it's generally true that religious groups are like organisms and react a lot like organisms do, ie: they learn to propogate themselves and defend themselves against threats to their survival. When you cut yourself, the wound scabs over to protect you. With a church group, undercutting the credibility of apostates, and engendering a certain fear of apostates amongst the still-believing, is just scabbing over the wound to protect the organism.

[_maklelan]

To be honest, I don't see any rationale for believing there's anything in it at all for the LDS church regarding "healing the rift" and drawing the church and its apostates together. That's sort of like arguing that human beings need to find a way to have a healthier and closer relationship with cyanide, or that we ought to find a better way to bring children and razor blades together.

I think the reason the doctrinal or scriptural teachings regarding the church and its apostates is one of rejection and hostility, or regarding the apostates as deceived sinners who are under the control of Satan, is because that attitude is the one that best suits the institutional needs of the believers in insulating the believers from subversive ideas and people. With the exception of groups like Heaven's Gate or Peoples' Temple, I believe it's generally true that religious groups are like organisms and react a lot like organisms do, ie: they learn to propogate themselves and defend themselves against threats to their survival. When you cut yourself, the wound scabs over to protect you. With a church group, undercutting the credibility of apostates, and engendering a certain fear of apostates amongst the still-believing, is just scabbing over the wound to protect the organism.

Do you really think criticism of apostates is designed to buffer those still in the church?

[_Sethbag]

Yes.

[_Jason Bourne]

To be honest, I don't see any rationale for believing there's anything in it at all for the LDS church regarding "healing the rift" and drawing the church and its apostates together. That's sort of like arguing that human beings need to find a way to have a healthier and closer relationship with cyanide, or that we ought to find a better way to bring children and razor blades together.

I think the reason the doctrinal or scriptural teachings regarding the church and its apostates is one of rejection and hostility, or regarding the apostates as deceived sinners who are under the control of Satan, is because that attitude is the one that best suits the institutional needs of the believers in insulating the believers from subversive ideas and people. With the exception of groups like Heaven's Gate or Peoples' Temple, I believe it's generally true that religious groups are like organisms and react a lot like organisms do, ie: they learn to propogate themselves and defend themselves against threats to their survival. When you cut yourself, the wound scabs over to protect you. With a church group, undercutting the credibility of apostates, and engendering a certain fear of apostates amongst the still-believing, is just scabbing over the wound to protect the organism.

Do you really think criticism of apostates is designed to buffer those still in the church?

yes. No questions about it. When I bring up concerns I have to my wife she think satan is trying to destroy me and my family and she blames all this starting with an evangelical critic that I became friendly with about 7 years ago. She calls him a sheep in wolves clothing, siad I should have never tried to debate with him and just stayed away. This is a common attitude.


This attitude is quite prevelant. If you reject the One True Church there must be some flaw in you. And no matter what you think people like this fade from their former social circle. That latter may be due to both parties however.

[_gramps]

To be honest, I don't see any rationale for believing there's anything in it at all for the LDS church regarding "healing the rift" and drawing the church and its apostates together. That's sort of like arguing that human beings need to find a way to have a healthier and closer relationship with cyanide, or that we ought to find a better way to bring children and razor blades together.

I think the reason the doctrinal or scriptural teachings regarding the church and its apostates is one of rejection and hostility, or regarding the apostates as deceived sinners who are under the control of Satan, is because that attitude is the one that best suits the institutional needs of the believers in insulating the believers from subversive ideas and people. With the exception of groups like Heaven's Gate or Peoples' Temple, I believe it's generally true that religious groups are like organisms and react a lot like organisms do, ie: they learn to propogate themselves and defend themselves against threats to their survival. When you cut yourself, the wound scabs over to protect you. With a church group, undercutting the credibility of apostates, and engendering a certain fear of apostates amongst the still-believing, is just scabbing over the wound to protect the organism.

Do you really think criticism of apostates is designed to buffer those still in the church?

Yes.

Feel free to post evidence showing otherwise.

[_maklelan]

yes. No questions about it. When I bring up concerns I have to my wife she think satan is trying to destroy me and my family and she blames all this starting with an evangelical critic that I became friendly with about 7 years ago. She calls him a sheep in wolves clothing, siad I should have never tried to debate with him and just stayed away. This is a common attitude.

So is disliking Utah, but that doesn't make it the intention of the church leaders. What makes you think this is the purpose of those teachings.

This attitude is quite prevelant. If you reject the One True Church there must be some flaw in you. And no matter what you think people like this fade from their former social circle. That latter may be due to both parties however.

I think there is probably a comfort issue on both sides, but consider a scenario. I feel I have a strong testimony of the gospel. When I say I know it's true I really do feel it has been shown to me as well as anything can be shown to me. I can't make you feel the same way, but if I feel that way about it is it not natural to be concerned when another rejects that? Nevermind whether or not you believe the testimony to be valid, if I do can you really accuse me of trying to shield myself from you if I ask you what's up?

[_maklelan]

Wow. A shotgun response from everyone involved. I can see you all have strong feelings about this. Would it be terribly inaccurate of me to posit that some unpleasant personal experiences may be creating a less than perfectly objective perspective on this issue?

[_Sethbag]

Mak, when the leadership of the church compare anti-mormon or LDS-critical material (and by implication the people who share them) with pornography, it's clear they are stearing people away from it. By implication, those who share these views are tainted and interacting with them is likely to cause one to lose the Spirit in one's life. If this isn't an attempt to steer people clear, I don't know what is.

Also, read up in the CHI in the section about excommunication. Holding apostate beliefs isn't necessarily grounds for excommunication, but sharing those apostate beliefs with others in the church is specifically enumerated in the CHI as grounds for excommunication, justified as protecting the flock. It's obvious from this that the associations and prejudices the LDS members commonly understand with respect to excommunicated apostates is being used as a means of protection. It's basically spelled right out in the CHI.

[_Sethbag]

Wow. A shotgun response from everyone involved. I can see you all have strong feelings about this. Would it be terribly inaccurate of me to posit that some unpleasant personal experiences may be creating a less than perfectly objective perspective on this issue?

If you were correct in saying that all the critics who have so far posted in this thread had direct, personal experience with this attitude from TBMs, wouldn't that serve to tell you something about this side of the argument?