Yet more evidence of Mr. "D"

[_wenglund]

Wade, what do you think of the limits of LDS acceptance of "Dr. D"? Here we have Dutcher stating that he feels Heavenly Father is leading him to another path, and in response we see people challenging the very notion that a person can find God without Mormonism:

I can't leave unchallenged the notion that the gospel of Christ as revealed through and taught by the prophets is something that one can outgrow and still hope to find God.

But, for some unknown reason, our mutual Father in Heaven requires that I take another route.

Yeah, I imagine that last sentence will be difficult for most Latter-day Saints to swallow.

I think we would see more people leaving on good terms if there wasn't this pervasive notion among members that there is no valid path but Mormonism. Whether they say it or not, most Latter-day Saints must think Dr D is making a huge mistake. And if he actually comes out and says he thinks God is guiding him to another path, as Dutcher has done, it gets worse. It cannot go unchallenged. How would you expect potential "Dr Ds" to respond to this attitude? I think it is very disrespectful, and poisonous to relationships.

That is an excellent question.

Clearly, we have little or no control over how others will behave towards us, but considerable control over how we behave towards others, including how we react to them.

To me, the best way to minimize disrespect from others, is to be respectful of others, and to behave in ways that are generally perceived as respectable, and the best way to prevent relationships from being poisoned, is to not be poisonous, while also expecting and set bounderies for the same in return. I think Richard has done just that. He has chosen an excellent way to respond. He has been supportive of his still active LDS family, he has been committed to working out various challenges, he has been respectful of the Church, etc., and the continued support and love from his LDS family and friends is a testiment to how well his approach works.

Where I think he could improve would be: 1) to have not made his exit a matter of public discourse in which he personally participated. Rather, it may have been more wise to have kept the matter private, thus minimizing the chances that his exit would be percieved as a challenge or as cause to raise challenges, like what you quoted (I don't see it as necessarily problematic or disrespeccttful for anyone to think that the way they believe is what is best and the only right way, or to have concern when others depart from the way--just as long as such expressions are couched in respectful and loving terms, and are age-appropriate) . And, more importantly, 2) not concerning himself with certain possible reactions by members. He spent much of his first letter interdicting the potential of become a Sunday School lesson--I think he way over estimated his importance within the LDS community (I am sorry but I don't think he is comparable in stature to Thomas Marsh), and he thereby focused on matters of debate and discord. Instead, were he to have paid little mind to what may possibly happen, and going forward let some of the expected reactions from believing members roll off his back, focusing instead on being the best person he can be, and working towards satisfying the basic human need for mutual love and value, he would have been, or will be, even more better off.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Who Knows]

...he would have been, or will be, even more better off.

Again, what does that mean? What are you measuring, or using to measure, when you say 'healthier' or 'more better off'?

[_Mister Scratch]

Some of you may remember my anology in which I mentioned a Mr. "D" who left the Church with the best of feelings towards the Church and didn't consider the Church to be a fraud or not acting in good faith about what it claims to be. Rather, he viewed his departure as due to but a difference of opinions.

Hi, Wade! Good to see you again.

I'm afraid that Richard Dutcher is not a very good example. For one thing, it has not been fully, completely, and conclusively established that he has, in fact, "left the Church." To a certain extent (such as his "Irish beer" comment) it seems that he is merely a jack-Mormon, which does not qualify for "Mr. D." status. Second, he states that, "The private answers to the questions I have asked in my prayers, and in my films, have led me on an unexpected journey, a spiritual path which may ultimately prove incompatible with Mormon orthodoxy." What do you suppose he means by "incompatible with Mormon orthodoxy"? Do you really think that this is a tacit "affirmation" of the Church and the Brethren, Wade? He is basically saying that the "answers to [his] prayers" have told him to exit the Church. This is, in essence, saying that the Church is not "true." The "difference of opinions" has to do with whether or not the Church is true, Wade.

There were those who doubted the very existence of such people, and were unsatisfied with the anecdotal evidence I proffered in support thereof. They also dismissed Don Bradley as a viable example (his own comments in support thereof notwithstanding).

I am not sure they will accept Richard Dutcher as a case in point (some people's minds are closed to even the most obvious evidence), but I think his exit letters (see the thread, "Richard Dutcher - the Exmo") shows him to fit the Mr. "D" profile perfectly. That Richard's last name begins with "D", makes him all the more fitting. ;-)
Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think I get what you are saying, Wade. You are saying that it is okay for people to leave the Church, and to say that the Church "isn't true," or "isn't what it claims to be," but they just need to say it in a nice way.

Where I think he could improve would be: 1) to have not made his exit a matter of public discourse in which he personally participated. Rather, it may have been more wise to have kept the matter private, thus minimizing the chances that his exit would be percieved as a challenge or as cause to raise challenges, like what you quoted (I don't see it as necessarily problematic or disrespeccttful for anyone to think that the way they believe is what is best and the only right way, or to have concern when others depart from the way--just as long as such expressions are couched in respectful and loving terms, and are age-appropriate) . And, more importantly, 2) not concerning himself with certain possible reactions by members. He spent much of his first letter interdicting the potential of become a Sunday School lesson--I think he way over estimated his importance within the LDS community (I am sorry but I don't think he is comparable in stature to Thomas Marsh), and he thereby focused on matters of debate and discord. Instead, were he to have paid little mind to what may possibly happen, and going forward let some of the expected reactions from believing members roll off his back, focusing instead on being the best person he can be, and working towards satisfying the basic human need for mutual love and value, he would have been, or will be, even more better off.

I see. So what you are saying is that he essentially should have just shut his mouth and not done anything. What you're actually revealing here, Wade, is that "Mr. Ds" don't exist because TBMs are way too vicious towards those who leave the Church. Mr. Ds could only arise in a situation where TBMs treat exiters with respect, but, since that never happens, there can be no Mr. Ds. Sorry, Wade! Keep trying!

[_guy sajer]

I think I get what you are saying, Wade. You are saying that it is okay for people to leave the Church, and to say that the Church "isn't true," or "isn't what it claims to be," but they just need to say it in a nice way.

From whence comes the requirement that leaving the Mormon Church must be done in a "nice" way? Who imposes this standard? Who has the right to impose this standard?

Believing Mormons appear in many cases to assume a sense of entitlement. They grudgingly grant you the right to leave (though not without attributing it to character flaw), but then they demand that you be nice about it. Why? Well, because it's THEIR church. Go ahead and say what you want about whatever else, but not about OUR church. You must be nice to us; don't speak badly about our church.

BS. If I, or anyone, leave the Mormon Church, we has all the right in the world to openly, freely, and honestly express our opinions and our experiences regarding the doctrines, the people, the history, and in many cases these opinions and experiences are not nice.

Get over it; not everybody loves Mormonism. Many people acutely dislike it. Some hate it. Just because its YOUR church is totally irrelevant. I, and anyone else, have no obligation whatsoever to be nice regarding our views about Mormonism. In fact, one might argue, if there's an ethical obgliatin, and we think the the Mormon Church is, on balance, a harmful cult, don't we possess some obligation to at least warn those we love about it, if not also those who are flirting with getting hooked into it?

I prefer civility on the whole, but sometimes it's appropriate to call a spade a spade and not be nice about it. It's high time for believers to let go of this silly sense of entitlement they have that the rest of the world owes them respect, for no other reason than they fervently believe in something, regardless of how silly or mistaken the belief is, or how right they think it is.

[_beastie]

So is it a form of cognitive distortion when believers say that exbelievers lost faith due to pride, ignorance, laziness, desire to sin, or psychological dysfunctions?

[_Dr. Shades]

So is it a form of cognitive distortion when believers say that exbelievers lost faith due to pride, ignorance, laziness, desire to sin, or psychological dysfunctions?

LOL!

Yep, you're a goddess, all right!

[_wenglund]

I think I get what you are saying, Wade. You are saying that it is okay for people to leave the Church, and to say that the Church "isn't true," or "isn't what it claims to be," but they just need to say it in a nice way.

From whence comes the requirement that leaving the Mormon Church must be done in a "nice" way? Who imposes this standard? Who has the right to impose this standard?

Believing Mormons appear in many cases to assume a sense of entitlement. They grudgingly grant you the right to leave (though not without attributing it to character flaw), but then they demand that you be nice about it. Why? Well, because it's THEIR church. Go ahead and say what you want about whatever else, but not about OUR church. You must be nice to us; don't speak badly about our church.

BS. If I, or anyone, leave the Mormon Church, we has all the right in the world to openly, freely, and honestly express our opinions and our experiences regarding the doctrines, the people, the history, and in many cases these opinions and experiences are not nice.

Get over it; not everybody loves Mormonism. Many people acutely dislike it. Some hate it. Just because its YOUR church is totally irrelevant. I, and anyone else, have no obligation whatsoever to be nice regarding our views about Mormonism. In fact, one might argue, if there's an ethical obgliatin, and we think the the Mormon Church is, on balance, a harmful cult, don't we possess some obligation to at least warn those we love about it, if not also those who are flirting with getting hooked into it?

I prefer civility on the whole, but sometimes it's appropriate to call a spade a spade and not be nice about it. It's high time for believers to let go of this silly sense of entitlement they have that the rest of the world owes them respect, for no other reason than they fervently believe in something, regardless of how silly or mistaken the belief is, or how right they think it is.

The same can and has been said of ex-Mormons and unbelievers--but to what end or benefit?

I am not trying to deny people their anxst, their vitriol, their vengence, or their victimology, etc. I am simply suggesting a workable alternative. We each have a choice. We don't have to wallow in self-pity, or gnash our teeth, or wax self-righteous and judgemental and hyper-critical, or contribute to the cycle of violence and human degredation. We can choose to devote our efforts to constructive endevours that uplift and enrich the human condition, and enable the satifying of the critical human need for mutual love, value, and respect.....or not.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

...he would have been, or will be, even more better off.

Again, what does that mean? What are you measuring, or using to measure, when you say 'healthier' or 'more better off'?

I am not measuring anything. My comments are based on general sociological principles that have proven themselves out over the course of human history.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_guy sajer]

I think I get what you are saying, Wade. You are saying that it is okay for people to leave the Church, and to say that the Church "isn't true," or "isn't what it claims to be," but they just need to say it in a nice way.

From whence comes the requirement that leaving the Mormon Church must be done in a "nice" way? Who imposes this standard? Who has the right to impose this standard?

Believing Mormons appear in many cases to assume a sense of entitlement. They grudgingly grant you the right to leave (though not without attributing it to character flaw), but then they demand that you be nice about it. Why? Well, because it's THEIR church. Go ahead and say what you want about whatever else, but not about OUR church. You must be nice to us; don't speak badly about our church.

BS. If I, or anyone, leave the Mormon Church, we has all the right in the world to openly, freely, and honestly express our opinions and our experiences regarding the doctrines, the people, the history, and in many cases these opinions and experiences are not nice.

Get over it; not everybody loves Mormonism. Many people acutely dislike it. Some hate it. Just because its YOUR church is totally irrelevant. I, and anyone else, have no obligation whatsoever to be nice regarding our views about Mormonism. In fact, one might argue, if there's an ethical obgliatin, and we think the the Mormon Church is, on balance, a harmful cult, don't we possess some obligation to at least warn those we love about it, if not also those who are flirting with getting hooked into it?

I prefer civility on the whole, but sometimes it's appropriate to call a spade a spade and not be nice about it. It's high time for believers to let go of this silly sense of entitlement they have that the rest of the world owes them respect, for no other reason than they fervently believe in something, regardless of how silly or mistaken the belief is, or how right they think it is.

The same can and has been said of ex-Mormons and unbelievers--but to what end or benefit?

I am not trying to deny people their anxst, their vitriol, their vengence, or their victimology, etc. I am simply suggesting a workable alternative. We each have a choice. We don't have to wallow in self-pity, or gnash our teeth, or wax self-righteous and judgemental and hyper-critical, or contribute to the cycle of violence and human degredation. We can choose to devote our efforts to constructive endevours that uplift and enrich the human condition, and enable the satifying of the critical human need for mutual love, value, and respect.....or not.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Agreed, it is preferable that we devote our efforts to constructive endeavors. But then, truth, the search for it, and the unmasking of un-truth posing as truth are constructive endeavors. Those who undertook the constructive endeavor to expose Mormonism for what it is, did me, and thousands of other people, and tremendous service in helping us break free of the cult. You seem to want to define "constructive endeavor" in more limited terms than I do.

I believe in the ongoing search for truth. Mormonism, as a belief system, does not. It peddles a false truth, and does so in deceptive ways. Exposing it, criticizing it, holding it, and its leaders accountable, is, in my opinion, highly constructive. And I am grateful to the persons who have undertaken this task.

[_beastie]

Wade,

you forgot to answer this question:

So is it a form of cognitive distortion when believers say that exbelievers lost faith due to pride, ignorance, laziness, desire to sin, or psychological dysfunctions?