Another Wade Thread: What is the Solution?

[_beastie]

Wade started another thoughtful thread and is behaving well over at MAD.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=28435

On several threads there has been a smattering of discussion about what it would take to resolve the general animus between apologists and critics, as well as between member and non-member. In one of those discussion, TJane took a step in the right direction by asking critics: "What solution are you looking for?"

Another way of asking this question is: "what is your desired outcome?" or "what do you need from the other party?" or "what would bring you peace and happiness"?

I think it would be good to learn how the critics and former members answer these questions for themselves (not to be confused with apologists or members answering for them).

And, I think it good to learn what how the apologists or members answer these same questions for themselves (not to be confused with critics and former members answering for them).

What say you?

(I think it would also help this discussion were each of us to read thoughtfully what may be said by either side, and not react defensively, keeping in mind that the intent of this thread isn't to judge, accuse, and point fingers or debate opposing views or convert others to our respective ways of thinking or even defend our respective positions, but rather to get clarity and better understand the opposing view and to find that which will make us each better people and improve our relations. This will require getting more into a listening and empathy mode and being flexible.)

I've said this before, and I believe it quite sincerely. The animus between Mormon and exmormon will continue unless the LDS church stops teaching that there is something wrong with people who leave the church. They sin, they're weak, they never believed, etc. As long as this teaching continues, when people lose faith and leave the church, they will be viewed with suspicion by their LDS family and friends, and will be angry about being viewed with suspicion.

It's really a very simple answer.

[_barrelomonkeys]

Hi Beastie, I wish you'd post that over there. I just read the thread and no one has mentioned that.

I appreciated Wade's question and sincere gesture. Seems it has been lost in the shuffle... of course I asked something beside the point too. :)

[_Sethbag]

The church will always do what they think will best protect the church. By protection, I mean keeping the most people in, and preventing people, to the greatest degree possible, from leaving. Since the church really isn't true, and exposure to the truth, and to the historical stuff that serves as symptoms of Joseph's lack of divine calling, have a track record of pulling people out of their belief comfort zones, the church has evolved the practice of demonizing those who fall away, so that they are discredited in a lot of TBMs' eyes and what they have to say isn't believed. Why do you think the church actually would change this? What's in it for the church? What do you think they care most about, not demonizing or offending apostates, or "protecting" the membership from the things the apostates would tell them, that might threaten their testimonies?

I see very little upside to the church from changing this. The only "dialogue" that would suit the church is dialogue which totally defanged the truth, and took away its power to threaten the testimonies of the members. How could that ever be satisfying to those who see Joseph's and the Church's true early history as symptoms of its not being true?

[_bcspace]

I've said this before, and I believe it quite sincerely. The animus between Mormon and exmormon will continue unless the LDS church stops teaching that there is something wrong with people who leave the church. They sin, they're weak, they never believed, etc.

That the LDS Church is the only true and God authorized Church on the face of the earth is part and parcel of it's doctrine. Therefore, there will always be something wrong with people who leave it. No worries. There is always something wrong with anyone it too (Ether 12:27).

Conclusion? The animus will continue as long as rabid exmos continue to not understand the doctrines of the Curch and their consequences.

As long as this teaching continues, when people lose faith and leave the church, they will be viewed with suspicion by their LDS family and friends, and will be angry about being viewed with suspicion.

Depends on how they act and what they're trying to accomplish. For example, I would protect my children against false doctrines or immoral behaviors perpetrated by exmos in with the same rigor I would if they were simply nonLDS.

[_harmony]

I've said this before, and I believe it quite sincerely. The animus between Mormon and exmormon will continue unless the LDS church stops teaching that there is something wrong with people who leave the church. They sin, they're weak, they never believed, etc.

That the LDS Church is the only true and God authorized Church on the face of the earth is part and parcel of it's doctrine. Therefore, there will always be something wrong with people who leave it. No worries. There is always something wrong with anyone it too (Ether 12:27).

Conclusion? The animus will continue as long as rabid exmos continue to not understand the doctrines of the Curch and their consequences.

Actually, bcspace, for many of the "rabid" exmos, understanding the doctrine isn't the problem. They understand the doctrine altogether too well.

As long as this teaching continues, when people lose faith and leave the church, they will be viewed with suspicion by their LDS family and friends, and will be angry about being viewed with suspicion.

Depends on how they act and what they're trying to accomplish. For example, I would protect my children against false doctrines or immoral behaviors perpetrated by exmos in with the same rigor I would if they were simply nonLDS.

But would you protect your children against the truth?

[_moksha]

Wade started another thoughtful thread and is behaving well over at MAD.
The animus between Mormon and exmormon will continue unless the LDS church stops teaching that there is something wrong with people who leave the church.

Yeah, this anger is wrong, but I think being a Mormon critic will continue as long as it is a viable life choice for ex-members and as long as there are coins to be garnered by the Ministries to Combat Mormonism.

[_Sethbag]

But would you protect your children against the truth?

Yes, he would, because it's not the truth he's interested in, but rather their "testimonies". Testimony uber alles. It really doesn't matter what "the truth" is; that can always be changed as needed. What matters is in the testimony.

[_beastie]

Hi Beastie, I wish you'd post that over there. I just read the thread and no one has mentioned that.

No. I won't post at MAD. But you, or anyone else, should feel free to point this out here. This is a pretty obvious point, and I won't consider it bad form to bring it up without referencing me. Just about any exmormon would have thought of this, because the vast majority of us have suffered due to this teaching.

That the LDS Church is the only true and God authorized Church on the face of the earth is part and parcel of it's doctrine. Therefore, there will always be something wrong with people who leave it. No worries. There is always something wrong with anyone it too (Ether 12:27).

Conclusion? The animus will continue as long as rabid exmos continue to not understand the doctrines of the Curch and their consequences.

There is a significant difference between "what is wrong" with believing Mormons and "what is wrong with people who once believe and reject the faith." To point out that ALL fall short of God and pretend that means that the LDS teaching about apostates is not a problem is a strawman argument. And if exmormons misunderstand what you seem to be saying is the "real" teaching, and they're no worse than any other person, then most Mormons misunderstand it, too.

Your argument is like saying that someone who has been taught that people with AIDS are not only sexually promiscuous, deserving to get sick, but also contagious in nonsexual ways (yes, contradictory but what difference does that make in the human mind) doesn't result in people treating patients with AIDs like modern lepers, not wanting to get near them or touch them, and viewing them as being punished by God, anyway, because they, themselves, may have a common cold.

The fact is that believers who lose faith are often, in fact, almost always, viewed with suspicion, and often anger and fear. This is not how believers view other believers at all, despite all falling short. (and believe me, I know full well that Mormonism teaches that all people fall short)

Depends on how they act and what they're trying to accomplish. For example, I would protect my children against false doctrines or immoral behaviors perpetrated by exmos in with the same rigor I would if they were simply nonLDS.

That's not the topic, is it? The topic is the animus between believing Mormons and exmormons, and how to solve it.

I don't actually think that the LDS church will ever do what I suggested. But I sincerely believe this would be the only step that would largely eradicate this animus.

People leave churches for other churches or nonbelief all the time. But it's only with a very few select churches that this animus predictably occurs. It is undeniable that the animus is created due to what these particular churches teach their members about why people leave the flock.

When I first left the church, I read a book by an exJehovah's Witness. I was naïvely surprised to read that JWs are taught the same thing Mormons are taught about why people leave the flock. It's a very common teaching among one specific type of religion.

[_Some Schmo]

The church will always do what they think will best protect the church. By protection, I mean keeping the most people in, and preventing people, to the greatest degree possible, from leaving. Since the church really isn't true, and exposure to the truth, and to the historical stuff that serves as symptoms of Joseph's lack of divine calling, have a track record of pulling people out of their belief comfort zones, the church has evolved the practice of demonizing those who fall away, so that they are discredited in a lot of TBMs' eyes and what they have to say isn't believed. Why do you think the church actually would change this? What's in it for the church? What do you think they care most about, not demonizing or offending apostates, or "protecting" the membership from the things the apostates would tell them, that might threaten their testimonies?

I see very little upside to the church from changing this. The only "dialogue" that would suit the church is dialogue which totally defanged the truth, and took away its power to threaten the testimonies of the members. How could that ever be satisfying to those who see Joseph's and the Church's true early history as symptoms of its not being true?

What's funny about this question is that they're apparently a Christian church. One would think that not demonizing a certain subset of the population would be the christian thing to do.

Man, god's really dropped the ball on this one.

[_Sethbag]

I'm just approaching the question from the point of view of the LDS church as a pseudo-organism, which has evolved in ways that maximize survival. Other churches have evolved their own responses to the same stimulus. In Islam, the penalty for apostasy is death. With Jehovah's Witnesses, the penalty is never being able to speak with your family and friends again, ie: complete ostracism. With Scientologists, you're labeled a "suppressive person" and become "fair game". These responses are all scabs, forming over the wound caused by the apostasy, in order to protect the organism from further damage through infection through this wound.