Yet more evidence of Mr. "D"

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

Again, the same dogmatic declarations and smug appreciation can and have been said in reverse, but to what avail?

What ends up being promoted is contention rather than "truth", divisiveness rather than unity, defensiveness rather than openness, degredation rather than progression, food-fights rather than feasts, smoke rather than fire, or as Brent Metcalfe has said: "heat rather than light".

If you are really intent on promoting truth, then I think it important to understand that it is relatively rare that converts are made on either side when the prevailing tool of evangelizing is negativity and the message is "what's wrong with the other guy's belief" (you may be the exception rather than the rule). And too often, those converted under those conditions end up directionless and floundering like a ship whose anchor has been cut loose on the storm-tossed seas, or whose compass has been deemed errant.

Much more productive (particularly on a mutual basis) is a positive and respectful message of "here is what I believe is right and good and workable with my belief", particularly when it is conveyed in such a way that the message is made self-evident--I.e. by living and acting in such a way that others will see that seeds of 'truth" you have planted yeild an abundance of desirous and benefitial fruit.

Think of it this way: which menu would you be attracted to and most likely to be nourished by, and which do you think will draw family and friends to sit and partake around the table?

1) Sour grapes, bitter root, thorny thistle, rotten tomatoes, and spoiled or burnt meat.

2) Fresh and ripe peaches and cream, chicken BBQed to perfection, tossed salad with your favorite dressing, cool and refreshing glass of water.

The question, then, for each of us is: "Which menu are you and I serving up?"

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade---

None of this explains how "Mr. D" can even exist. Is it possible, in your mind, for a person to say, "I believe the LDS Church is false" in a nice way? Or, to backtrack a bit, are you okay with the way Richard Dutcher said, in effect, that he believes the Church to be false? (Or, for that matter, do you believe that that's not what he said?)

[_beastie]

None of this explains how "Mr. D" can even exist. Is it possible, in your mind, for a person to say, "I believe the LDS Church is false" in a nice way? Or, to backtrack a bit, are you okay with the way Richard Dutcher said, in effect, that he believes the Church to be false? (Or, for that matter, do you believe that that's not what he said?)

Also remember that Wade clarified he thinks only "edifying" criticism is acceptable. I should have saved the link to that thread because I think it was very revealing. How in the world can it ever be "edifying", in the eyes of a believer, to have the foundational claims of the LDS church challenged?

Contrast this insistence that, more or less, the only good exmormon is a silent exmormon, or one who effusively praises Mormonism in spite of personal lack of belief, with the early apologists who had more guts and said things like this:

"This book must be either true or false. If true, it is one of the most important messages ever sent from God... If false, it is one of the most cunning, wicked, bold, deep-laid impositions ever palmed upon the world, calculated to deceive and ruin millions... The nature of the message in the Book of Mormon is such, that if true, no one can possibly be saved and reject it; If false, no one can possibly be saved and receive it... If, after a rigid examination, it be found an imposition, it should be extensively published to the world as such; the evidences and arguments on which the imposture was detected, should be clearly and logically stated, that those who have been sincerely yet unfortunately deceived, may perceive the nature of deception, and to be reclaimed, and that those who continue to publish the delusion may be exposed and silenced, not by physical force, neither by persecutions, bare assertions, nor ridicule, but by strong and powerful arguments - by evidences adduced from scripture and reason..."

"But on the other hand, if investigation should prove the Book of Mormon true ... the American and English nations ... should utterly reject both the Popish and Protestant ministry, together with all the churches which have been built up by them or that have sprung from them, as being entirely destitute of authority."
- Apostle Orson Pratt, Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, Liverpool, 1851, pp. 1-2

http://www.i4m.com/think/intro/book_of_mormon.htm

What has changed? I speculate that over a hundred years of advancing knowledge, whether it has to do with ancient American history, translation of Egyptian, the problematic history of the church, has eroded the confidence of apologists, who, in the past, boldly challenged critics to prove them wrong.

by the way, Wade, I always knew you would never answer my question. The reasons are obvious.

[_beastie]

Don Bradley had a good post, too:

Ray,

I agree 100% that this letter was a beautiful and generous way to make an exit from Mormondom. But people who leave differ in personality, experience, and the beliefs they adopt upon leaving. My childhood experience in the church was wonderful, and Mormonism gave meaning and direction to my life into adulthood. But not everyone has such positive experiences. Some have bad experiences in the church. Some have terrible family consequences when they doubt, lose faith, or leave the church. And some, as pointed out by another poster, adopt new beliefs that cause them to fear for the souls of their Mormon family and friends. If you thought a religious organization had your family and friends trapped on the path to eternal damnation, you might view that organization in quite negative terms yourself!

I don't think you would hold such beliefs about any organization, and I believe you and I share the view that the very idea of eternal damnation is unworthy of the human conscience, much less of a perfect God. But if we try to step for a moment into the shoes of those who do believe such dire consequences await those who adopt the wrong faith, it's not hard to understand why they might have a strong negative reaction to Mormonism.

I hope you read this in the spirit in which it's intended. You know that I've expressed views quite similar to yours on the quality of "discussion" typical of such places as RFM. But I'd go slow about being harsh on everyone who fails to exit Mormondom as graciously as Richard Dutcher.

I think this is an important point that believers who adhere to the "the only good exmormon is a silent exmormon, or one who praises the LDS church effusively despite no longer believing" school of thought seem to ignore. Obviously, the type of experience one had as a Mormon depends upon many factors. Some have to do with family dynamics. Did Mormonism help the particular family provide a happy and safe environment for the exmormon as a child? Or did Mormonism seem to be a factor in a dysfunctional environment? Did the personality and traits of the exmormon coordinate well with the Mormon culture? Or did the personality and traits present conflicts, and how did everyone involved react to the conflicts?

I'll use two examples from my family. My father and oldest sister remain active Mormons. I don't believe either will become an exmormon one day, but if they did, their reactions to their LDS experience would likely be very different. My father joined as an adult, white, successful male around 50 with an intact family. Generally speaking, he has thrived in the LDS culture. Almost immediately he was put in leadership positions and treated with accompanying respect by members. He was a bishop within two years of joining the church. The church influenced by mother to be more satisfied with their relationship. He's been a happy Mormon. Things have gone well with him. He fits well within the LDS culture.

My sister, on the other hand (who is one of those people who "chooses" to believe), has had difficulty fitting within the LDS culture. She's an intelligent, outspoken woman, and that has not always set well with the LDS culture. Although she's raised four children in the church, she was about the polar opposite of a "Molly Mormon", and has not been able to make many friends within the LDS church.

They both have had entirely different experiences within the LDS church, and view the LDS culture very differently. If my father were to lose faith, he would probably be like Don and view the church as a very positive influence on his life. It's treated him well. My sister, on the other hand, might resent the years she spent trying to accommodate herself to LDS culture.

There are even more extreme examples that are easy to think of. I think being a gay Mormon must be horrific. The constant message of unworthiness, of being deeply tainted in some way, must be stressful and difficult. Why should they laud praise on a culture that made them feel "less than"?

This is a very simple concept. I'm certain the "the only good exmormon is a silent exmormon" adherents would easily understand it, and probably already recognize it. Yet it can't be admitted. Some people have very good reasons to be angry at "Mormonism", and it has nothing to do with their own "cognitive distortions", and everything to do with what kind of life they experienced as Mormons.

[_wenglund]

Perhaps Juliann and you can partner up and coauthor the book "Exiting Mormonism for Dummies".

This book will be subtitled: "Or How to take a spiritual screwing like a submissive mute...without a word of complaint and a twinkle in your eye."

This title and subtitle are strongly suggestive of disrespect and victimology, and are thus opposite to any message I wish to convey to exiting Mormons. But, given your own mindsets, I am not suprised that you would suggest them.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

From your posts it seems like that's exactly what you're saying; at least the submissive mute and twinkle in the eye part. Perhaps where you disagree is in Bond's assertion that people who buy into Joseph Smith's lies and the apologists' distortions and get shunned when they leave have been spiritually screwed? But of course, they all feel they have, and if you minimize that feeling then you have failed to empathize with them. Isn't it self-righteous to lecture someone for their response to a feeling of victimization when in fact you are unable or unwilling to empathize with that feeling? -CK

You clearly are not correctly understanding what I have been saying. The key point of this thread is that, contrary to what you claim above, and in light of Richard "D's" example, not everyone who leaves the Church believes they have been "spiritually screwed". Not everyone views themselves in victimological terms. Not everyone feels they have been shunned. Not everyone immerses themselves in self-pity, anger, and grief, nor do they all expect empathy from others that they, themselves, are unwilling to give (an expectation, by the way, which takes power over one's own disposition and distributes it illegitimately to others).

The same is true in reverse. From Richards family and friends, as well as other such as myself, we learn that not every LDS believes they have been spiritually screwed by ex-members. Not every member views ex-members as liars, deceivers, covenant-breakers, and so forth. Not every member feels shunned or abandoned by ex-members, and so on and so forth.

This means that both parties have a CHOICE. They each can play the victim, embrace the void, wallow in self-pity, focus on the past, seek revenge and exact supposed justice, all of which, while at times bringing a small measure of momentary satisfaction, corrodes and degrades relationships and diminishes all parties concerned. Or, they each can seek to become their very best selves, fully embrace the abundant richness and blessing that life has to offer, wallow in genuine gratitude, focus on the future and worthwhile goals to be attained, seek to uplift and extend mercy, all of which, over the long run, will tend to repair and enhance relationships, edify all parties concerned, and bring lasting sastisfaction and joy.

These are CHOICES that we each can make for ourselves, and not for others (though, through making wise choices, one may positively influence others to do likewise). In other words, this isn't me telling you or anyone else to be mute and twinkle-eyed. It is me acknowledging that you and everyone else are the captains of their own ship, and you aren't relegated to uncontrolably navigating the tempest-tossed sea of victimology, but are empowered to sail to calm, peaceful, and beautiful waters of personal and interpersonal progression and actualization.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_harmony]

You clearly are not correctly understanding what I have been saying. The key point of this thread is that, contrary to what you claim above, and in light of Richard "D's" example, not everyone who leaves the Church believes they have been "spiritually screwed". Not everyone views themselves in victimological terms. Not everyone feels they have been shunned. Not everyone immerses themselves in self-pity, anger, and grief, nor do they all expect empathy from others that they, themselves, are unwilling to give (an expectation, by the way, which takes power over one's own disposition and distributes it illegitimately to others).

The same is true in reverse. From Richards family and friends, as well as other such as myself, we learn that not every LDS believes they have been spiritually screwed by ex-members. Not every member views ex-members as liars, deceivers, covenant-breakers, and so forth. Not every member feels shunned or abandoned by ex-members, and so on and so forth.

This means that both parties have a CHOICE. They each can play the victim, embrace the void, wallow in self-pity, focus on the past, seek revenge and exact supposed justice, all of which, while at times bringing a small measure of momentary satisfaction, corrodes and degrades relationships and diminishes all parties concerned. Or, they each can seek to become their very best selves, fully embrace the abundant richness and blessing that life has to offer, wallow in genuine gratitude, focus on the future and worthwhile goals to be attained, seek to uplift and extend mercy, all of which, over the long run, will tend to repair and enhance relationships, edify all parties concerned, and bring lasting sastisfaction and joy.

These are CHOICES that we each can make for ourselves, and not for others (though, through making wise choices, one may positively influence others to do likewise). In other words, this isn't me telling you or anyone else to be mute and twinkle-eyed. It is me acknowledging that you and everyone else are the captains of their own ship, and you aren't relegated to uncontrolably navigating the tempest-tossed sea of victimology, but are empowered to sail to calm, peaceful, and beautiful waters of personal and interpersonal progression and actualization.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Assertions without foundation are as useless as opinions. And no one... no one can make any kind of definitive assertion about ex-members in general and their collective experience in leaving the LDS church. It's not like there's an exit interview that takes place. The church doesn't even acknowledge that these people have left, let alone why they left. We only have anecdotal evidence, personal experiences, and gossip, none of which are useful in forming a useful premise, let alone a valid conclusion.

So your basic concept is suspect, Wade (not that you will ever acknowledge that).

[_guy sajer]

This means that both parties have a CHOICE. They each can play the victim, embrace the void, wallow in self-pity, focus on the past, seek revenge and exact supposed justice, all of which, while at times bringing a small measure of momentary satisfaction, corrodes and degrades relationships and diminishes all parties concerned. Or, they each can seek to become their very best selves, fully embrace the abundant richness and blessing that life has to offer, wallow in genuine gratitude, focus on the future and worthwhile goals to be attained, seek to uplift and extend mercy, all of which, over the long run, will tend to repair and enhance relationships, edify all parties concerned, and bring lasting sastisfaction and joy.

You've set up a false dichotomy. Either one is a bitter, victim wallowing in self-pity, or one is "their very best selves . . . ." In practice, ex-Mos come in all types; clearly some bitter; others nonchalantly going on their way, but many, many others dealing with it in different ways.

I understand what you're trying to say, and I agree in principle that the best course is to find peace, move on, and get on with one's life. But that is often easier said than done, particularly for those of us who are unwillingly dragged into the Mormon vortex on a daily basis. Sometimes one must simply cope, "moving on" is hard to do or not an option. And how one moves on differs person by person. There is no "recipe" for this. There are no 7 easy steps. There is life, and it can be messy and stubbornly refuse to accomodate itself to feel good, simplistic bromides that you peddle.

So, while I understand and sympathize with what I think you're trying to say; how you are saying it reflects a combination of ignorance and naivte (just where is this La La Land you live in?) that seriously detract from your credibility.

[_beastie]

This means that both parties have a CHOICE.

Once again, the day I see you preaching to your own tribe about their choices in this matter is the day I will take you seriously.

[_Bond...James Bond]

not everyone who leaves the Church believes they have been "spiritually screwed".

How about financially screwed? Socially screwed?

[_wenglund]

This means that both parties have a CHOICE. They each can play the victim, embrace the void, wallow in self-pity, focus on the past, seek revenge and exact supposed justice, all of which, while at times bringing a small measure of momentary satisfaction, corrodes and degrades relationships and diminishes all parties concerned. Or, they each can seek to become their very best selves, fully embrace the abundant richness and blessing that life has to offer, wallow in genuine gratitude, focus on the future and worthwhile goals to be attained, seek to uplift and extend mercy, all of which, over the long run, will tend to repair and enhance relationships, edify all parties concerned, and bring lasting sastisfaction and joy.

You've set up a false dichotomy. Either one is a bitter, victim wallowing in self-pity, or one is "their very best selves . . . ." In practice, ex-Mos come in all types; clearly some bitter; others nonchalantly going on their way, but many, many others dealing with it in different ways.

It's not a false dichotomy. I was merely describing polar ends of a spectrum. I had assumed that would be self-evident. But, apparently in your case I way over estimated. My apolologies.

I understand what you're trying to say, and I agree in principle that the best course is to find peace, move on, and get on with one's life. But that is often easier said than done, particularly for those of us who are unwillingly dragged into the Mormon vortex on a daily basis. Sometimes one must simply cope, "moving on" is hard to do or not an option. And how one moves on differs person by person. There is no "recipe" for this. There are no 7 easy steps. There is life, and it can be messy and stubbornly refuse to accomodate itself to feel good, simplistic bromides that you peddle.

I realize that each person's circumstances may be different, and that some people may have a more difficult row to hoe than others. Nothing I have said suggests otherwise.

However, I think you are wrong to believe that there aren't strategies that better enable each person, regardless of circumstances, to find peace and "move on" and have a great life. There are such strategies (as attested to by Richard D)--just as there are strategies that will do just the opposite and points inbetween (as may have been the case with you and many here and at RFM).

Would you like to hear some of those strategies? Or, do you have such an affinity for your "mess" that you are content with sticking your head in the sand and stubbornly muddling your way through things?

So, while I understand and sympathize with what I think you're trying to say; how you are saying it reflects a combination of ignorance and naivte (just where is this La La Land you live in?) that seriously detract from your credibility.

Fine! Don't take my word for it. Take a page from one of your own, and follow the excellent example of Richard D (is he La La-ish to you?). See if it doesn't improve things for you--particular while you are daily in the "Mormon Vortex" (ohh...the drama!!)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

not everyone who leaves the Church believes they have been "spiritually screwed".

How about financially screwed? Socially screwed?

I believe the same is true for these as well. Suprised?

You see, not everyone who leaves the Church forgets the true meaning and purpose of charitable contributions, nor do they all view their relationships as inexstricably limited to and extensively limited by the Church. For example, I don't see anywhere in Richard D's two exit letters where there was even the least hint that he begrudged paying tithes and offerings, and he seems to still have a good and solid relationship with his family and friends--which relationships he, of course, made concerted efforts not to damage in the manner in which he determined to leave his faith (perhaps there is a lesson in this for some?).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-