Anti-Mormonism = FAD

[_Scottie]

Bryan, can I ask what "area" you live in?

Utah County. The cultural hub and Mecca of. . . nothing.

Ok, next question...what, exactly, are these kids doing that is anti-Mormon?

I smell an SCMC rat


Its a trap!

SHUT UP MERC!!!!!! Narc!!! :)

[_wenglund]

I think a person can leave the church for the "wrong" reason. I mentioned this in a thread recently, that I know a guy, a friend of the family, who left the church because "it wasn't working for me", and drank, smoked, and screwed around for a while, partied hearty, but after some mind games from his parents and realizing that his new-found friendships were pretty empty and he wasn't finding happiness, he's now back in the church. The problem is, he didn't leave the church for the right reason, which is that it's not actually true.

If these kids are just looking to be cool, then that's probably not the right reason. If they honestly want to know whether the church really is true or not, then that, IMHO, is the right reason. I personally believe the church should be embraced, or rejected, based on its truth value, and not based on any social considerations or whether "it's working for you" or not.

In one respect that makes sense, but in another it doesn't.

Let me explain what I mean by using the following metaphor:

Suppose you are the captain of a ship out in the middle of the ocean, and you have been using a compass and nautical map with which to navigate. At this point, these are alI the navigation tools you are currently aware of or have access to.

In this case is it more important to determine the "truth value" or accuracy of the compass or map, or rather whether they "work for you"?

Suppose you were to determine that your spiritual compass, as you have used it, is not as accurate or "truthful" as your scientific map. In other words, you determine that your spiritual compass may not be "true", though it may have worked somewhat well in guiding your family ship to destinations you wished to go. Would it be wise to jettison the compass in the absense of an alternative directional devise?

I ask because I see not a few members leaving the Church after deeming it false, though prior to finding a direction-providing belief systems that is preferred, let alone at all, and thereby finding themselves floundering convictionless and directionless in their unbelief. This can, and has, resulted in considerable challenges, suffering, and pain.

Is that really wise or preferred to perhaps sticking with what may have, to some degree, worked--that is until one finds "the truth" or something that works better?

Pardon my mixing my metaphors, but it is not unlike quiting your job at company prior to having another job lined up or any savings to live on.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Scottie]

I think a person can leave the church for the "wrong" reason. I mentioned this in a thread recently, that I know a guy, a friend of the family, who left the church because "it wasn't working for me", and drank, smoked, and screwed around for a while, partied hearty, but after some mind games from his parents and realizing that his new-found friendships were pretty empty and he wasn't finding happiness, he's now back in the church. The problem is, he didn't leave the church for the right reason, which is that it's not actually true.

If these kids are just looking to be cool, then that's probably not the right reason. If they honestly want to know whether the church really is true or not, then that, IMHO, is the right reason. I personally believe the church should be embraced, or rejected, based on its truth value, and not based on any social considerations or whether "it's working for you" or not.

In one respect that makes sense, but in another it doesn't.

Let me explain what I mean by using the following metaphor:

Suppose you are the captain of a ship out in the middle of the ocean, and you have been using a compass and nautical map with which to navigate. At this point, these are alI the navigation tools you are currently aware of or have access to.

In this case is it more important to determine the "truth value" or accuracy of the compass or map, or rather whether they "work for you"?

Suppose you were to determine that your spiritual compass, as you have used it, is not as accurate or "truthful" as your scientific map. In other words, you determine that your spiritual compass may not be "true", though it may have worked somewhat well in guiding your family ship to destinations you wished to go. Would it be wise to jettison the compass in the absense of an alternative directional devise?

I ask because I see not a few members leaving the Church after deeming it false, though prior to finding a direction-providing belief systems that is preferred, let alone at all, and thereby finding themselves floundering convictionless and directionless in their unbelief. This can, and has, resulted in considerable challenges, suffering, and pain.

Is that really wise or preferred to perhaps sticking with what may have, to some degree, worked--that is until one finds "the truth" or something that works better?

Pardon my mixing my metaphors, but it is not unlike quiting your job at company prior to having another job lined up or any savings to live on.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think that part of growing is learning to be at peace with yourself without the need to believe in a higher power. So, although it may be hard to get to that point, it is a better place.

[_beastie]

Are these Mormon kids who don't believe in the church, or never-mo's? The influence of the church in Utah is so pervasive that maybe it's just a way to "get back" at what they perceive to be an organization that has undue influence.

[_wenglund]

for 10+ years I have been working with the Youth in some way or another - I've been on scores of camp-outs and made many friendships I cherish.. I was a good mentor, a shoulder to cry on, I always have couch to crash on, or advice to give when girls became more important than power rangers.. I sometimes worry while at church or walking through the n-hood that one of my boys will ask me why I don't teach them anymore, or participate in scouts.

I have attended three mission "reports" in the last year where I have been very disturbed with the dilemma of what the F*** do I do now. do I tell these boys(whom I love like sons) everything about the church I should have taught them 10 years ago when they were deacons? do I track down the boys who are off at school or married, and let them know Joseph Smith was a scheming philanderer and the Book of Mormon is most likely fiction, and "by the way" the more you look into the Bible it is more flawed than the Book of Mormon, and just in case you were unaware there are 1000's of valid, logical reasons to question the divinity of Christ, and the very existance of a God any god..

Is that now my cross to bear?(so to speak)- or do I attempt to un-indoctrinate all of these boys I so successfully participated in indoctrinating for years..

Rather than looking at this in terms of indoctrination, why not view yourself as still in a great position to teach by example. Let the kind of life you lead give the kids you still love clear evidence of your presumably elevated and preferred way of thinking.

However, I am not sure that dropping the F-bomb on them, or perhaps putting your religious intolerance and judgementalism on display like you have to some degree here, will lend itself to that end.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Anonymous]

Wade, I see where you're going with this. The problem is that people are kind of stuck in a pickle because the only guidance they have is now known to be based on false premises and a false, virtual reality way of seeing the world. I'm not sure the best way for people to deal with this problem is to just stick with the church, because that's all they have. I think people who realize the church isn't true have just taken a step closer to really growing up, and looking around at the world, seeing their place in it, and coming up with a plan for what's next, is just something they're going to have to face up to.

The problem with the way this guy left the church, is that he didn't leave it because he knew it was not true. In a way, he fulfilled the cliché and left because he wanted to "sin". I say "sin" with scare quotes because in reality a lot of what he wanted to do I don't think is really sinful. But he saw it that way. In his worldview, he'd left the church, but recognized that his actions were sinful by church standards, and so he'd always be haunted by guilt, knowing that he'd left "the Truth" to go off and sin. That's not a very good way to live, IMHO.

His problem was that he never really understood that the church isn't actually true, and that the church's concepts of what is sinful or not are just their hot-air, personal opinions, and in no way reflective of some kind of cosmic reality. His second problem was that since he was still holding onto the church in some way, he really didn't, and couldn't come up with a good, positive, and meaningful alternative for his life's guidance. The church was always there in his mind, looming over him like an albatross around his neck. So in the end he did the prodigal son thing and went back to the only thing he knew.

I'm not sure I know exactly where I'm going to go with this knowledge for the rest of my life. I freely admit that I'm not settled onto a new path yet. I don't know how things will go. But I do know that the LDS church's path leads to nowhere, really. People on that path may be happy, but they aren't going to the Celestial Kingdom in the end. Their families really won't be together forever. They won't see their dead relatives again in the spirit world, or wherever. And there's no video camera in the sky recording their everything thought, their every deed, their every word, to be used against them at "the Last Day". Jesus isn't coming back. Gordon B. Hinckley doesn't talk to God. Neither does Boyd K. Packer, or anyone else. For that matter, we don't have to give a shyte what Boyd K. Packer thinks about anything. He's just one more self-appointed "special witness" to an imagined being who doesn't actually exist*.

I'm willing to come to terms with the world as it really exists, and figure out how to make my life as meaningful as I can. I'm not done with that yet, and I expect it'll be a long time before I am, if ever. I'm OK with that.

*speaking of Jesus Christ in his mythical role of God and savior of us all, not whether there ever was a real man named Jesus or not

[_beastie]

Wade's just saying what others have said many times before, albeit with fewer words: The church may not be what it claims to be, but it's still a great way to (fill in the blank, usually raise a family).

That satisfies some people, but to many others, it just doesn't wash. For me, the only reason the church had value was because it was true. I didn't need to church to tell me how to live a moral, happy life - and I suspect only the most troubled individuals need the church to do that for them.

[_Sethbag]

However, I am not sure that dropping the F-bomb on them, or perhaps putting your religious intolerance and judgementalism on display like you have to some degree here, will lend itself to that end.

ROFL. What was that quote about modern religion being reduced until it really stands for nothing anymore than not saying the word "f***"?

[_Mercury]

However, I am not sure that dropping the F-bomb on them, or perhaps putting your religious intolerance and judgementalism on display like you have to some degree here, will lend itself to that end.

ROFL. What was that quote about modern religion being reduced until it really stands for nothing anymore than not saying the word "f***"?

Wades just jealous that Bryan gets to hang around with impressionable young boys.

[_wenglund]

I think that part of growing is learning to be at peace with yourself without the need to believe in a higher power. So, although it may be hard to get to that point, it is a better place.

Yet, for some of us, part of growing has come from gaining peace through belief in a higher power. To us, that is a better place.

But, this is all beside the point that I was trying to make. To me, since we live in a world where certain "truths" (particularly those of a spiritual nature) are not definitive or readily determinable with absolute certainty, growth and peace comes by seeking out and traveling on various paths that reasonably appears to work best for us (functionally and epistemically), rather than by leaving a given path without having some other path of growth and peace to replace it. In other words, having a way that, to one's best assessment, though with various doubts and uncertainties, will lead one ahead, will serve one better than rejecting one's current path because of doubt and uncertainty, and having no path to travel at all.

To use another metaphor, it is like a 15-year-old determining that the public school system isn't "true" or that it doesn't work for him, and dropping out without having some other "true" or "workable" alternative.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-