A pious one, perhaps.
- Doc
On one level, of course it's lying/fraud, but it's also more complex than that. It's also somewhat different from selling a fraudulent investment, I think.
When I went through the MTC, we were told (by one of the Q12 no less) to fake a testimony and develop one by 'bearing' it--telling investigators we believed X, Y and Z even before we might believe it. This has no doubt been a tool that resulted in baptisms and tithe paying. Bingo! FRAUD.malkie wrote: ↑Thu Apr 20, 2023 4:11 pmOn one level, of course it's lying/fraud, but it's also more complex than that. It's also somewhat different from selling a fraudulent investment, I think.
I would hope that those of us who have had the experience of acting in this way (myself included) would perhaps be a little more charitable - perhaps recognize it more as fooling ourselves, rather than attempting to defraud someone else.
As has been pointed out in this thread, there is often intense pressure to fit in, to be part of the group, to be accepted, and hence to accept.
I remember my first "testimony" at church. It was definitely a "fake it till you make it" affair, but I justified it to myself at the time because the missionaries who taught me (well, the last of a long string of missionaries) assured me that if I "lived the gospel" I would come to know it was true. My (now ex-)wife, who had been a member for 7 or 8 years, gave me the same assurance. I was desperate to belong.
I was baptized under unusual circumstances, not fully believing in what I had been taught, and as a result was unable to pass the "normal" baptismal interview. The Mission President had told the District Leader that he could make an exception for me, but also said that anyone else attempting similar shenanigans would be sent home.
Do you feel no responsibility for how any of those listeners in that church meeting might have been pushed by your fake-it testimony closer towards 'belief' and becoming a tithe payer?malkie wrote: ↑Thu Apr 20, 2023 4:11 pmI remember my first "testimony" at church. It was definitely a "fake it till you make it" affair, but I justified it to myself at the time because the missionaries who taught me (well, the last of a long string of missionaries) assured me that if I "lived the gospel" I would come to know it was true. My (now ex-)wife, who had been a member for 7 or 8 years, gave me the same assurance. I was desperate to belong.ld the District Leader that he could make an exception for me, but also said that anyone else attempting similar shenanigans would be sent home.
Not really, for a couple of reasons:Nimrod wrote: ↑Thu Apr 20, 2023 4:38 pmDo you feel no responsibility for how any of those listeners in that church meeting might have been pushed by your fake-it testimony closer towards 'belief' and becoming a tithe payer?malkie wrote: ↑Thu Apr 20, 2023 4:11 pmI remember my first "testimony" at church. It was definitely a "fake it till you make it" affair, but I justified it to myself at the time because the missionaries who taught me (well, the last of a long string of missionaries) assured me that if I "lived the gospel" I would come to know it was true. My (now ex-)wife, who had been a member for 7 or 8 years, gave me the same assurance. I was desperate to belong.ld the District Leader that he could make an exception for me, but also said that anyone else attempting similar shenanigans would be sent home.
Yeah, I didn't suppose you would get it. And, I don't separate myself from the group of people who feel this way at times. I am trying to understand my experience just as much as I am trying to understand the experience of others. I don't view this as a polemical exercise.
I agree, and that is because they are acting as part of the community. I would recommend that any of us who want to understand this phenomenon read Abducted by Susan A. Clancy. It really helps one understand the conversion phenomenon in a new way. As we make big changes in our perspective in response to social stimuli, we go through a process of realization of the truth of the new position and the flaws of the old position. This is true both on the way in and also on the way out the door.
But of course you would think that.Yeah, I didn't suppose you would get it.
makes sense. I still don't agree that defining something as a cult can be simplified to a type of 'buyer's remorse', but it does help to explain that this comment is based on one's experience:Kishkumen wrote: ...And, I don't separate myself from the group of people who feel this way at times. I am trying to understand my experience...
In the end however, the outward, agreed-upon definition of a cult doesn't depend on whether one uses the term to hide embarrassment. If anything, one could argue that the embarrassment expressed actually lends credence to the use of the term 'cult.'Eventually you will get tired of it. And people do. And they get pissed off. And they leave. And who can blame them?
...It must be a cult. That is a viable explanation to them.
But, hold on, maybe it is just the case that you fell for the bait-and-switch, the same kind that exists all over the place...Is it a cult?
Nah.
It is only a cult because people have to manage their retrospective embarrassment and regret for having, for so many years, put so much into something that took more than it gave back.
99.999999% of what I say on this board would not be acceptable from the perspective of active Utah Mormons. Note, however, that I am Mormon, and it acceptable to me.Kishkumen wrote: It certainly isn't acceptable from the perspective of Mormons.
Yet, criticizing the Church is mere cognitive dissonance? It seems they are doing better than I am, for sure.Kishkumen wrote:And, as long as people accept that position as viable, they can say they know the LDS Church is true with a straight face and clean conscience.