The Validity of First Hand Accounts

[_harmony]

Correction. Many of those people (I assume we're talking about new converts) were convinced they had a void in their lives prior to their initial encounter with the missionaries. The missionaries pointed out a way for them to fill the void. The missionaries were not the ones who created the void, nor were they the first ones who noticed it.

I disagree. As a missionary I helped convince people that (like scientology) theres a bad scary thing in the closet (death) and that in order to get the best return for ones time you have to allign yourself with the Mormons. And ONLY the Mormons.

Gaz, I spoke with MANY people who took the moroni "challenge". well over 95 percent did not recieve a witness. Those that did not recieve it knew that it was bunk. Those that recieved a "witness" were borderline retarded, emotionally scarred or too young to know that we were manipulating them.

I think we're talking about a chicken/egg thing. Which came first, the void or the missionaries? For some, it was the void. For others, it was the missionaries. Neither claims all.

[_Mister Scratch]

Correction, they are trying to fill what the Mormons have convinced them is an empty space in their lives.

I think this is an interesting and provocative point. While I don't know so much about this "empty space" thing---and I think harmony has a point here, hence the advice given to missionaries about preaching to mourning investigators, trolling obits, etc.---I think that the Church most definitely sets up a kind of "guilt cycle." I.e., it gets people to feel guilty about things they would not otherwise feel guilty about, (not paying tithing, for example; or sex outside of marriage) and then presents itself as the lone "cure" for that guilt.

[_Some Schmo]

How do you account for all of the people who put Moronis challenge to the test and receive a revelation that the Church is true? Over, and over, and over again?

Although I'm a great fan of Richard Dawkins' work, one of the things he says that I disagree with is the idea that you don't choose what to believe. I really believe people do (I imagine I've chosen to), but I don't think they do it consciously. I think that what a person believes is in a symbiotic relationship with what is comfortable for them (primarily unconsciously) and that the two support each other in whatever way they can.

I have no doubt that the people who report they received a "revelation" are definitely creating a belief which appeals to some unconsciously perceived, potential comfort.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Correction. Many of those people (I assume we're talking about new converts) were convinced they had a void in their lives prior to their initial encounter with the missionaries. The missionaries pointed out a way for them to fill the void. The missionaries were not the ones who created the void, nor were they the first ones who noticed it.

I agree. The missionaries just got there first. These converts could have ended up Moonies just as easy.

[_Dr. Shades]

I think that the Church most definitely sets up a kind of "guilt cycle." I.e., it gets people to feel guilty about things they would not otherwise feel guilty about, (not paying tithing, for example; or sex outside of marriage) and then presents itself as the lone "cure" for that guilt.

So you're saying that the church breaks your leg, then hands you a crutch, then says "See, if it wasn't for us, you wouldn't be able to walk"?

[_Mercury]

I agree. The missionaries just got there first. These converts could have ended up Moonies just as easy.

Exactly. And in most cases investigators were affiliated with the flavor of the month last month.

I have nothing but contempt for those who took me seriously as a missionary, especially myself.

[_Mister Scratch]

I think that the Church most definitely sets up a kind of "guilt cycle." I.e., it gets people to feel guilty about things they would not otherwise feel guilty about, (not paying tithing, for example; or sex outside of marriage) and then presents itself as the lone "cure" for that guilt.

So you're saying that the church breaks your leg, then hands you a crutch, then says "See, if it wasn't for us, you wouldn't be able to walk"?

Yes, sort of. I think that is quite a good analogy. One can point to any number of areas in which people are made to feel guilty in ways they wouldn't had it not been for Church indoctrination.

[_Mercury]

How do you account for all of the people who put Moronis challenge to the test and receive a revelation that the Church is true? Over, and over, and over again?

Although I'm a great fan of Richard Dawkins' work, one of the things he says that I disagree with is the idea that you don't choose what to believe. I really believe people do (I imagine I've chosen to), but I don't think they do it consciously. I think that what a person believes is in a symbiotic relationship with what is comfortable for them (primarily unconsciously) and that the two support each other in whatever way they can.

I have no doubt that the people who report they received a "revelation" are definitely creating a belief which appeals to some unconsciously perceived, potential comfort.

In a very intense conversation with the stake president here in Mississippi/Tennessee we were talking about children and the "choice" of baptism at 8. I asked him how many children turn down baptism. He said none, as is expected. I asked him how much of a choice is it if every child does not turn down baptism.

My point is that we do not choose to believe. we accept the reality given to us by our parents. In a closed homogenous society such as Mormonism you are not given a choice, you are told what to believe and you have no mechanisms to defend against beliefs being pushed onto you. You accept it because your authority figures accept it. In this, you do not choose to believe but instead you take the "obvious choice". This is a synopsis of what Dawkins is pitching and I buy it.

[_beastie]

Missionaries are instructed to look for people in a transition period of their lives. Often this translates into people trying to cope with a life-changing (and sometimes tragic) situation. So, in a way, they are deliberately looking for broken people whom they can then offer a crutch.

Witness testimony is practically worthless. There have been many studies done that demonstrate how unreliable eye witnesses are. The public has the impression that, for example, in a court of law, an "eye witness" to the crime is the best sort of evidence, but it's not. It's the circumstantial evidence that is more reliable.

People retroactively edit their memories constantly. This is particularly true when the memory is connected to some sort of heightened emotion.

[_Some Schmo]

In a very intense conversation with the stake president here in Mississippi/Tennessee we were talking about children and the "choice" of baptism at 8. I asked him how many children turn down baptism. He said none, as is expected. I asked him how much of a choice is it if every child does not turn down baptism.

My point is that we do not choose to believe. we accept the reality given to us by our parents. In a closed homogenous society such as Mormonism you are not given a choice, you are told what to believe and you have no mechanisms to defend against beliefs being pushed onto you. You accept it because your authority figures accept it. In this, you do not choose to believe but instead you take the "obvious choice". This is a synopsis of what Dawkins is pitching and I buy it.

Well, a couple things:

- I'm primarily talking about adults. There's a certain point where people let go of the thoughts inherited by their parents and start to make choices for themselves, and it is most definitely past the age of eight. Even if they continue to think what their parents think, it could mean that when they were unconsciously confronted with what to believe, they decided to opt for the easy route and just keep thinking what they've always thought (ie. what their parents taught them).

- Again, the choice is unconscious. I could argue that a child is making the unconscious choice for survival by choosing to adopt what their parents believe, but this is a semantics argument, and really, what child would choose death? As adults, however, it may seem like we've "got no choice" but there's always a choice. Just because one of the alternatives could be extremely unattractive (eg death) doesn't mean you don't have a choice.

I think, given our shared experience, it's rather obvious that people choose what to believe. Think about it. Why else would so many people be Mormon, especially in the face of so much contrary evidence? How is it that Moroni's promise works for some people?