Models

[meinmachine]

How it all gets started.

1. I “Know” there is a god.
2. He Tells Me Stuff
3. He Tells Me there is “Sin.”
4. You are a Sinner.
5. Sinners are Bad and Cannot be with god.
6. God has a Solution!
7. Join Me and god will Save you!
8. I have proof! - god’s "Book" Says I am right! (Yes I wrote it / Interpreted it to suit my needs, but god told me to!
9. Give me Your Money and Women, or god will cast you down to HELL!- But he’ll do it because he loves you!
10. Still don't believe me? Oh well, my followers will have to kill you. Of course thay are only killing you because they love you!
:duh

[free thinker]

How it all gets started.

1. I “Know” there is a god.
2. He Tells Me Stuff
3. He Tells Me there is “Sin.”
4. You are a Sinner.
5. Sinners are Bad and Cannot be with god.
6. God has a Solution!
7. Join Me and god will Save you!
8. I have proof! - god’s "Book" Says I am right! (Yes I wrote it / Interpreted it to suit my needs, but god told me to!
9. Give me Your Money and Women, or god will cast you down to HELL!- But he’ll do it because he loves you!
10. Still don't believe me? Oh well, my followers will have to kill you. Of course thay are only killing you because they love you!


Perfect.


ft

[Fredl]

[QUOTE=free thinker]How it all gets started.

1. I “Know” there is a god.
2. He Tells Me Stuff
3. He Tells Me there is “Sin.”
4. You are a Sinner.
5. Sinners are Bad and Cannot be with god.
6. God has a Solution!
7. Join Me and god will Save you!
8. I have proof! - god’s "Book" Says I am right! (Yes I wrote it / Interpreted it to suit my needs, but god told me to!
9. Give me Your Money and Women, or god will cast you down to HELL!- But he’ll do it because he loves you!
10. Still don't believe me? Oh well, my followers will have to kill you. Of course thay are only killing you because they love you!


May I have permission to extend your model?

11. This is what Mormons believe.

12. As described, the beliefs of Mormons are, at best, foolish; at worst, evil.

12. My friend Jim M. who I met in the chuch and continues to be a Mormon believes this.

13. Therefor, I should not be friends with Jim unless he renounces these beliefs.

Have I got it?

Fred

[hamar]

[QUOTE=free thinker]How it all gets started.

1. I “Know” there is a god.
2. He Tells Me Stuff
3. He Tells Me there is “Sin.”
4. You are a Sinner.
5. Sinners are Bad and Cannot be with god.
6. God has a Solution!
7. Join Me and god will Save you!
8. I have proof! - god’s "Book" Says I am right! (Yes I wrote it / Interpreted it to suit my needs, but god told me to!
9. Give me Your Money and Women, or god will cast you down to HELL!- But he’ll do it because he loves you!
10. Still don't believe me? Oh well, my followers will have to kill you. Of course thay are only killing you because they love you!


May I have permission to extend your model?

11. This is what Mormons believe.

12. As described, the beliefs of Mormons are, at best, foolish; at worst, evil.

12. My friend Jim M. who I met in the chuch and continues to be a Mormon believes this.

13. Therefor, I should not be friends with Jim unless he renounces these beliefs.

Have I got it?

Fred


In my opinion, you do not got it. What that said has nothing to do with the poor souls that are stuck in the tennacles of that theology. My son is still there. While I believe what the "machine" said is pretty accurate, I do not feel I have to give up my love of my son because of the stupid policies of tscc.

[meinmachine]

[QUOTE=free thinker]How it all gets started.

1. I “Know” there is a god.
2. He Tells Me Stuff
3. He Tells Me there is “Sin.”
4. You are a Sinner.
5. Sinners are Bad and Cannot be with god.
6. God has a Solution!
7. Join Me and god will Save you!
8. I have proof! - god’s "Book" Says I am right! (Yes I wrote it / Interpreted it to suit my needs, but god told me to!
9. Give me Your Money and Women, or god will cast you down to HELL!- But he’ll do it because he loves you!
10. Still don't believe me? Oh well, my followers will have to kill you. Of course thay are only killing you because they love you!


May I have permission to extend your model?

11. This is what Mormons believe.

12. As described, the beliefs of Mormons are, at best, foolish; at worst, evil.

12. My friend Jim M. who I met in the chuch and continues to be a Mormon believes this.

13. Therefor, I should not be friends with Jim unless he renounces these beliefs.

Have I got it?

Fred

No, I don't think you have my point.

Religions start this way. People chose to follow them. That is sad. That’s my point.

My son and daughter are LDS. My mother and sisters are LDS. There are no people I love more in the world than them. I wish they were not LDS, but I will not try to overtly dissuade them from their beliefs until they ask me to. I will try to be a good non-theist example and try to show them there is another way.

It is the religious that proclaim that god wants them to stop associating with the “sinners.” I am the one who has lost friends and contacts because of my status as a non-member.

I am sorry you find what I have written to be offensive. Are you offended because I point out that all religion is a man made construct? Or is it that you have put all atheists in a box and assumed that we have no association with any of the godly? Do you assume we do not love? Do you think we shun all those who disagree with us? I ask the world to turn on their brains. Think! Do not compartmentalize your thinking process. The reasoning skills that are used in every day life are more than enough to deduce that we have been duped.

Now if you are happy in what I consider a delusion, then enjoy. I do not wish to hinder your happiness. Most are not ready to take logical step of applying the method of proof that led you out of the church to the very origins of all religions. If you conclude that you must hold onto some form of a god then I am happy you have found a path you are comfortable with. In the mean time I am more than happy to associate with you and even be a friend if that is what you will allow.

[silverfox]

[QUOTE=free thinker]How it all gets started.

1. I “Know” there is a god.
2. He Tells Me Stuff
3. He Tells Me there is “Sin.”
4. You are a Sinner.
5. Sinners are Bad and Cannot be with god.
6. God has a Solution!
7. Join Me and god will Save you!
8. I have proof! - god’s "Book" Says I am right! (Yes I wrote it / Interpreted it to suit my needs, but god told me to!
9. Give me Your Money and Women, or god will cast you down to HELL!- But he’ll do it because he loves you!
10. Still don't believe me? Oh well, my followers will have to kill you. Of course thay are only killing you because they love you!


May I have permission to extend your model?

11. This is what Mormons believe.

12. As described, the beliefs of Mormons are, at best, foolish; at worst, evil.

12. My friend Jim M. who I met in the chuch and continues to be a Mormon believes this.

13. Therefor, I should not be friends with Jim unless he renounces these beliefs.

Have I got it?

Fred

Fred - where do you get the idea that post mos don't want to be friends with members?

?????

Mein's post had nothing to do with friendships. At all.

[Fredl]

Fred - where do you get the idea that post mos don't want to be friends with members?

?????

Mein's post had nothing to do with friendships. At all.

Why, heck, I'm not offended. Sounds like there's no problem at all with me having Mormon friends. It's just that I do need to keep in mind how much smarter I am compared to them in their deluded, manipulated, brain-washed state. Sounds a little bit like what I once heard about Jews or Blacks: (in a tone of mock-outrage, "How can you call ME prejudiced; some of my best friends are (fill in the blank)).

And that's where I'm having my problem. To me, it seems like a lot of the Mormons I know are at least as smart as I am, just as well informed, for the most part, more virtuous and well-meaning and certainly not brainwashed. I am not finding that any of my friends in the church want to dump me or that I've become a social outcast.

I also find myself wanting to defend the church to people who launch into attacks on tscc that are (at least to me) frequently ill informed and (to me) reflect irrational prejudices. Myself, I believe tscc has developed some remarkable "social inventions" that are well in advance of what I see in other churches. Looked at from an evolutionary perspective, I look at tscc as remarkably advanced in certain regards but tied to certain more primitive aspects of Christianity, especially in regard to its very primitive theology, that destroy its appeal for me.

Fred.

[meinmachine]

Post Mo = Racist?

[Born Free]

Why, heck, I'm not offended. Sounds like there's no problem at all with me having Mormon friends. It's just that I do need to keep in mind how much smarter I am compared to them in their deluded, manipulated, brain-washed state. Sounds a little bit like what I once heard about Jews or Blacks: (in a tone of mock-outrage, "How can you call ME prejudiced; some of my best friends are (fill in the blank)).

And that's where I'm having my problem. To me, it seems like a lot of the Mormons I know are at least as smart as I am, just as well informed, for the most part, more virtuous and well-meaning and certainly not brainwashed. I am not finding that any of my friends in the church want to dump me or that I've become a social outcast.

I also find myself wanting to defend the church to people who launch into attacks on tscc that are (at least to me) frequently ill informed and (to me) reflect irrational prejudices. Myself, I believe tscc has developed some remarkable "social inventions" that are well in advance of what I see in other churches. Looked at from an evolutionary perspective, I look at tscc as remarkably advanced in certain regards but tied to certain more primitive aspects of Christianity, especially in regard to its very primitive theology, that destroy its appeal for me.

Fred.
Fred,

I am most interested to see the aspects of Mo that you observe as progressive.

Like you I respond when I see attacks upon Mormonism that are based upon igorance. I do that not out of any particular love of Mo, but of the love of truth and fairness, and empathy.

The belief "I'm OK, You're Not" is toxic and frequently pathological wherever it is found.

I have highlighted a section in your post, that I see as very tongue in cheek. What I see here is a tension that you are feeling, a newly aroused anxiety now that you have declared your hand to the Church and your associates. That anxiety is yours to process; yours to make sense of and peace with.

You appear to be throwing that out in a way that expects and even provokes us to process that for you. I figure you are too smart to want to do that, really. Certainly I don't have the time to tilt lances at your windmills. Only you can make peace with your way forward. Arriving at the logical reasons for departing from Mo is the easiest part. Untangling all the emotional and guilt hooks that it implants takes more time, effort and wisdom, IMHE.

That said, I would be most interested to hear what is coming up for you; to hear what the thoughts, fears, feelings, anxieties are.

Daryl

[flotsam]

I'm feeling a bit torn on this subject.

Today in priesthood meeting they were discussing a quote about sin being something that "tends to dull your reason." It zigged off onto a discussion about how "anything can be a sin." Because if you do it to excess, at the expense of more important things, you're doing the wrong thing.

Taking Why_me's challenge to heart, I spoke up for the first time in months.

"So if anything can be a sin, does that meant anything can also be good for you."

The teacher, who is a good guy, held his manual in front of his face and said, "Flotsam, don't make me think hard!"

Then some other guy took up the guantlet and said that there are some things that are bad all the time.

I briefly considered asking about how that fit into the story of Abraham and Isaac, but I took a brief reading of the general temper of the room and decided against it.

I"m pretty sure everybody in there thought I was just doing some mental gymnastics at best, and calling evil good at worst. But I was really interested in the question. I have found that many things called bad have been good for me. But nobody wanted to think enough to even give it a chance. Which I thought was ironic as they were supposed be discussing how sin dulls your reason.

But I started thinking about it and realized that probably a lot of what was going on in that room was a socially useful form of discourse. Namely defining values we are agreeing to live according to in order to keep the social mechanism moving smoothly. I like smoothly fuctioning social mechanisms. So I was willing to let it go. That's fine if everyone wants to come and remind each other what they expect in social behavior, or in behavior that will eventually leak into the social sphere, using a myth as a vehicle.

However, I was there for spiritual talk. And the way I talk about spiritual stuff is way different from the way they talk. I might just have to get used to that.

So anyway. I'm partially with the "people don't think in church" camp, and partly with the, "massively intelligent people make significant sense out of Mormonism" camp.

[Fredl]

Post Mo = Racist?

When I was a young man, my intellectual college friends prided themselves on being totally unprejudiced because they were opposed to the oppression of Negroes (the politically correct term at the time.) They were, at the same time, quite prejudiced against Southern "Rednecks", but thought that was just being realistic rather than a form of bigotry.

No, I am not calling Post mos racist. I am saying that in general they are unable to see Mormons and tscc clearly and fairly because of their biases.

There are, of course, exceptions to this generaliztion, just as I was an exception to the generalization that WASPS were racists in the late 1950s.

Fred

[aether]

No, I am not calling Post mos racist. I am saying that in general they are unable to see Mormons and tscc clearly and fairly because of their biases.

Ha ha! Surely you must see the irony here. In this sweeping generalizing statement you've turned the tables. You are unable to see the Post-Mormons clearly and fairly because of your biases.

[lunaverse]

So anyway. I'm partially with the "people don't think in church" camp, and partly with the, "massively intelligent people make significant sense out of Mormonism" camp.

Thanks Flotsam!

I think it's because both types of people exist, and some types in the middle. Speaking from my opinion only, the Church doesn't stop reasoning ability all together. Instead I see it as a maze of walls which are the "untouchables", the unquestionables. These are sacred doctrines that are not open for debate.

Some accept it all without much thought. These are the "people don't think in church" camp, as you described. Granting there's a middle ground, the other extreme of true-believer are those who recognize those firm walls, recognize that there are some logical problems with them, and then create very elaborate and creative ideas to make it all make sense. Instead of removing cognitions (i.e. deciding the Church or part of its doctrine isn't true), they add cognitions. These are in the "intelligent people who make sense of it all" camp.

I was firmly in that second camp, thanks to having massively intelligent TBM parents. The core doctrines were very, very rigid and unquestionable in my family. Everything else was speculation-land! I found it very entertaining to try to figure out what was up with the flood, or where the Nephite cities disappeared to, or what parts of the Book of Revelation meant. It's something my family still participates in, but now I see little point since I view it all as myth. I do kind of miss it though.

I had the whole tower of Babel thing figured out, and also why dinosaur bones date back millions of years. (The bible doesn't say how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden now, does it!) We all even read non-Mormon books that supported our little pet theories.

You don't hear these ideas much in Sunday School, because we learned early on that speaking up about your weird little ideas will produce undesirable results. For me, it was pointing out that the OT states there was no rain before Noah. It really does! It says a mist rose out of the ground instead. I said that in class, got railed for it, then three years later in Seminary the TEACHER said the same thing, and the same kids Ooooed and aahhhed. :/

Anyhow! There's another type of Mormon cog-dis resolution, too, and I was starting down that road. Had certain events not happened to lead me out of the Church, I would have become that type.

When new information simply cannot be made to fit those rigid doctrines, and that new information is far too profound to ignore, some of the doctrines have to be ... bent. Altered slightly. One decides, "That particular statement by that prophet just isn't true," but one accepts the rest.

For example, in the years before leaving, I'd already decided "prayer & faith", "visualized goal-setting", and "magic", were all one and the same. I'd already decided that miraclulous events did not come from a godly blessing for believing in him, or from Satan's trickery, but from the same source -- human intent.

I couldn't ignore the fact that all over the world, people had made prophecies that came true, healed the sick, and even raised the dead. All without the Christian paradigm.

Obviously, I guessed that such ideas wouldn't be popular, so I never once mentioned them to TBM friends and family.

I guess my point with all this rambling is that, while I believe mental manipulation is alive and well in the Church, I don't think it turns everyone into drooling zombies. Those who are creative enough (and who have motive) will erect very artful structures around those solid walls of thought reform.

And I also believe there are those who, for various factors, defy the control. They're in there, fully aware of what's going on, and doing pretty much whatever they want. If they know the system well enough, no one will catch on, and they'll get away with anything.

There are strong and sassy women. There are creative forces for change. There are those who accept it all as BS until they're old enough to move out of their parent's homes. Coersive persuasion is not a pancea, one-size-works-on-all Jedi Mind Trick.

So basically, I'm not surprised to find all kinds of Mormons.

Luna

[why me]

I'm feeling a bit torn on this subject.

Today in priesthood meeting they were discussing a quote about sin being something that "tends to dull your reason." It zigged off onto a discussion about how "anything can be a sin." Because if you do it to excess, at the expense of more important things, you're doing the wrong thing.

Taking Why_me's challenge to heart, I spoke up for the first time in months.

"So if anything can be a sin, does that meant anything can also be good for you."

The teacher, who is a good guy, held his manual in front of his face and said, "Flotsam, don't make me think hard!"

Then some other guy took up the guantlet and said that there are some things that are bad all the time.

I briefly considered asking about how that fit into the story of Abraham and Isaac, but I took a brief reading of the general temper of the room and decided against it.

I"m pretty sure everybody in there thought I was just doing some mental gymnastics at best, and calling evil good at worst. But I was really interested in the question. I have found that many things called bad have been good for me. But nobody wanted to think enough to even give it a chance. Which I thought was ironic as they were supposed be discussing how sin dulls your reason.

But I started thinking about it and realized that probably a lot of what was going on in that room was a socially useful form of discourse. Namely defining values we are agreeing to live according to in order to keep the social mechanism moving smoothly. I like smoothly fuctioning social mechanisms. So I was willing to let it go. That's fine if everyone wants to come and remind each other what they expect in social behavior, or in behavior that will eventually leak into the social sphere, using a myth as a vehicle.

However, I was there for spiritual talk. And the way I talk about spiritual stuff is way different from the way they talk. I might just have to get used to that.

So anyway. I'm partially with the "people don't think in church" camp, and partly with the, "massively intelligent people make significant sense out of Mormonism" camp.
I think that you gave a good start for discussion enhancement. But I think that there needs to be an understanding that not everyone is inclined to rigorous thinking and critical dialogue...by critical I mean 'questioning'. But you did give it a try.

I don't know how I would have answered your question. Perhaps I would have asked you 'What is good?' hoping that you would give me a definition of good. And perhaps I would have steered the conversation to ethics and the meaning of the good life based around your definition of the good life. Once good is defined the conversation can really take off and then of course there needs to be a finish with perhaps 'can sin ever be good?' kind of question.

But one can never really know where a conversation ends up but with the right tone and respect for other opinions and experiences, the conversation can be a good one.

As with any organization, there will be all types of people as classified by your post. But when you have a large group of 'people don't think' types, the lessons can be boring and dulled even without the sin involved.

[silverfox]

Ha ha! Surely you must see the irony here. In this sweeping generalizing statement you've turned the tables. You are unable to see the Post-Mormons clearly and fairly because of your biases.

I agree! Except I can't see where Post Mos can be considered biased. I feel many people forget that post mos were 100% dedicated to the church because we DID feel it was good. It was our lives!!!!!! No question about it!!!! As a TBM I would have died for my testimony - it was that strong.

But now I can't deny the truths I have discovered.

People need to remember that we spent years and for some of us most of our lives defending the church, helping it grow, sacraficing everything for it.

But as Post Mos any of us have experienced social rejection since our departure from the church. Our children have suffered with that as well. You may not experience that, fred and I hope you don't. I think you are having a very positive experience as you reveal your true beliefs to your bishop and fellow ward members. I think that's GREAT!

I haven't sensed that this forum promotes a hatred of Mormons. Many forum members live in Mo communities, have Mo family members, Mo friends, Mo acquaintances, Mo clients, Mo coworkers, etc. We make it work. In spite of our differences, we make it work.

We share our frustrations, sure, but that is the intent of the forum...to share our challenges and frustrations as we enter into Post Mo status.

[peter_mary]

I think it's because both types of people exist, and some types in the middle. Speaking from my opinion only, the Church doesn't stop reasoning ability all together. Instead I see it as a maze of walls which are the "untouchables", the unquestionables. These are sacred doctrines that are not open for debate.

Luna
This post from Luna and the post from flotsam that prompted it got my mind to rummaging around the detritous that resides in the lump of grey flesh that quivers in the dark recesses of my cranium, and some ideas popped out.

I have been privleged to be among many very intelligent, very educated Mormons who have come to a great depth of understanding relative to Mormon doctrine. But it occurs to me that there are multiple ways of seeking knowledge, and the really devout tend to do as Luna suggested...confine themselves to certain parameters beyond which they dare not go. Often, like Jim Carey in the Truman Show, they don't even know that those limits are out there to challenge, so it's not like a cognitive choice they are making (typically), but rather an assumption that never gets questioned.

Instead, you have really intelligent people digging deeply into Mormon doctrine, and using their considerable intellectual abilities to auger in ever deeper. They exercise their learning and reasoning abilities very deeply in a vertical sense, but extremely narrowly in a horizontal sense. In other words, they know all about, I mean ALL about, this one tiny little slice of the universe called Mormonism, but very little beyond it except to the extent that it supports their understanding of Mormonism. Sure, they may be well read, but their understanding of what they've read (if they are true to their religion) is limited by the degree to which it supports or discounts those parameters that are "unquestionable."

To understand broadly, one has to break past those parameters. You have to be willing to chase down questions like, "What if the story of Abraham and Isaac was allegorical? What if there were no Nephites and Lamanites? What if Jesus was just a man? What if Joseph Smith was just a snake-oil salesman?" You might conclude orthodox answers to those questions, but you cannot be truly intellectually free until you consider them. So the Mormon intelligencia tend to know their Mormonism from top to bottom, but the rest of their world view tends to be limited by their Mormonism.

The mental image I always keep in mind when I think about this is that the Church is like a well, drilling deeply into the earth's crust. They know ALL about the rock layers they have explored along the shaft of that well...but the well is only 8 inches across. But NO one knows more about that 8 inch diamter well then Mormons do. Other strong adherents to specific doctrines do likewise. The truly intellectually intrepid spend their lives climbing out of wells, and exploring the surface of the planet, climbing into new wells as they encounter them, and out again to find the next.

But that raises an interesting awareness. Namely, there would be nothing to explore if Joseph et al hadn't created enough ambiguity into it all to allow people the opportunity to project, reason, and come to new and sometimes startling conclusions.

Okay, what the hell did that mean? Let me try it this way.

If Joseph Smith had said, "There is a stone box on the hill about 15 feet from the summit in which I found gold plates," then he could have been proven wrong. But he didn't. He created a story with a certain degree of ambiguity, including magic, angels, and no specifics other than a date and a rather large mound of dirt. Subsequently, the skeptic can argue that it is fiction, but their is plenty of wiggle room for the believer. So much wiggle room, in fact, that the truly gifted believer can create all KINDS of fantastical adendums to the original story to lend it strength and credibility, all of which goes way beyond what Joseph may have ever thought or even intended. And because of the ambiguity, you can argue the point, but you can't prove it wrong. You can disagree, but you will be hard pressed to dissuade.

There are countless times in which Joseph could have laid out very specific items that would have failed to come to pass, and he would have been relegated to the scrap heap of false prophets. But although he did at times commit himself erroniously to prophecies, for the most part, he kept himself, and his doctrine, sufficiently mysterious and ambiguous as to allow the brightest minds ever to be attracted to the church a lifetime of interesting spiritual exploration. Not only that, but he was sufficiently intelligent in his own right to add somewhat to the thinking of the day, and open new doors that had previously not been considered, or not been considered seriously until he taught them.

See, I believe that the power of scripture, all scripture, be it the Bible, the BoM, the D&C, the dharmas, the Koran, the Torah, whatever, lies in it's ambiguity, not it's specificity. Although people always point to specific scriptures to explain specific circumstances, the reality is, they are vague and ambiguous and as such, they provide a sort of screen upon which we project our current needs, our current circumstances, and our current train of thought. The result is a dynamic, ever unfolding, ever fresh awareness that seems to cause the scriptures to be timeless. As they grow in age, and in the sense of timelessness, they seemingly grow in wisdom, too.

And that's what has allowed Mormonism, like Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism the ability to persevere not only through time, but through learning and thinking as well. As long as there are those who are desirous to confront their reflection in the scriptures, they will continue to find meaning. And as long as they find meaning, they will seem divine. It may only be personal meaning, but it will be meaningful to them nonetheless. I think it is a testament to this very fact that so many of the very bright, capable people on this site did for so long seek intellectual fulfillment within the narrow, but deep, slice of the universe that is Mormonism.

So the question of the day is, are you stuck in a well, or climbing out? ;)

[meinmachine]

Fredl I think if I give you a quick overview of why I left the church and how I stand today you will appreciate why I have the perspective I have. I’ll save you the gory details by summarizing in point form. (It seems it ended up pretty long and gory anyway, sorry!)

1. I was baptized at age 9.My parents reactivated their membership in an attempt to teach their children something of god.

2. I was devout and really tried to live the gospel as I understood it.

3. Graduated from seminary with honors and served a full time mission. By all accounts I was successful; I had been a Zone Leader and one of the top baptizers in my mission.

4. I returned home, went to BYU and married in the temple.

5. All the while I did have questions about the church, but I assumed it was all true even if I had questions because the spirit had testified that it was the true church of god on the earth.

6. I transferred to the University of Lethbridge and completed my degree in History. In the mean time I had great difficulty in my marriage. This stress of going to school and separation from my wife and kids opened my eyes to the nature of the church. I realized that if it had little value when I was down and low what value did it really have? I started to allow the questions I had buried to come to the surface.

7. I found out through my University education and life experience that “Truth” cannot be determined by “Feelings.” Since the only proof I had that the Church was true was a feeling I had to then look at things from a more critical point of view.

8. To my shock and amazement I found out that all the things I “knew” were true were in fact false.

9. I began to search for another spiritual outlet. I looked into Buddhism, New Age, and other forms of Christianity.

10. I discovered that “spirituality” was almost always an attempt to make sense of the universe without having to rely on reason. So despite my best efforts I could never find a home in a new congregation.

11. Despite my concerns of the limitations of spirituality I seriously considered rejoining the church because I missed the good people, the programs and the brotherhood. I thought that maybe it was better to be happy than to be right.

12. Then I discovered the old Greek proverb “When I believed I was happy, when I doubted I was wise.” That is when I finally rid myself of the desire to return to the church and I stopped seeing the programs and services of the church as something I really needed.

13. By wishing to be wise I made it a priority to really learn the true nature of my former religion. As I studied I realized how many problems my membership in the church had caused me. Once the church seemed to be a harmless sideshow of my life, which maybe in the whole had given me much to be grateful for. In time I realized that it had created many problems that would take some time to sort out.

14. I came to resent the pain and the problems my membership had caused me. I wanted to lash out and I have to admit, I was pretty bitter.

15. Then with the help of this board and some of my friends outside of the church, I was able to let the anger go. I realized that although my membership in the Church had its problems I can take two things from it. 1. It was such a wacky and weird form of Christianity that it was pretty easy to find my way out of it once an opportunity arose to see it from a new perspective. 2. I met many wonderful decent people in the church.

16. I have come to realize that you do not have to be “smart” to find your way out of the church, but it does help. The church is like a pair of shoes (I hate to remind everyone of the metaphor again) for some it fits fine. For these folks there will be little need to ever put much thought into their belief system. For the majority (an estimated 8 million of them) the shoe does not fit and for these folks the pinching and binding will lead them to one of three conclusions. 1. Find a new pair of shoes. 2. Take pain killers. 3. Go barefoot.

17. I have chosen to go barefoot. I have applied the same standards I used on the LDS church to the very notion of spirituality. I have concluded that there seems to be little value in it and that I can live my life happily without it. Essentially I see no evidence that a god or any divine being exists, or that there is any spirit, energy, or power outside of nature. If this is so why should I waste a moment more of my life seeking it? (That being said if someone can prove I am wrong, then I am all ears.)

18. I have come to accept that everyone must choose for themselves what path they wish to follow. Of course I think the evidence suggests my path is correct, but if I were to try to impose my will on others I would lose their friendship and their respect. So I choose to live the best life I can to be a light in the wilderness. I hope I can lead others to the truth, but they must want it first.

I think you will find many members of this board have had similar experiences. Some may be at the angry stage, others may be wondering if there is any way back as they miss the happy illusion. You will find your own way, but make no mistake whatever path you choose is your decision to make, you will find that most here would support you in any path you choose.

[lunaverse]

See, I believe that the power of scripture, all scripture, be it the Bible, the BoM, the D&C, the dharmas, the Koran, the Torah, whatever, lies in it's ambiguity, not it's specificity. Although people always point to specific scriptures to explain specific circumstances, the reality is, they are vague and ambiguous and as such, they provide a sort of screen upon which we project our current needs, our current circumstances, and our current train of thought. The result is a dynamic, ever unfolding, ever fresh awareness that seems to cause the scriptures to be timeless. As they grow in age, and in the sense of timelessness, they seemingly grow in wisdom, too.

And in this sense, those scriptures are little different from divining methods such as Tarot, where there are layers upon layers of meaning. The "Pick a random scripture and it will have meaning regarding your problem" is kind of the same as drawing a tarot card or reading the daily horroscope..

Luna

[peter_mary]

And in this sense, those scriptures are little different from divining methods such as Tarot, where there are layers upon layers of meaning. The "Pick a random scripture and it will have meaning regarding your problem" is kind of the same as drawing a tarot card or reading the daily horroscope..

Luna
Exactly. (Although I have a hunch that some among us would sooner choke than accept the camparison of Tarot to the Bible!)

I've also had my palm read and had my Patriarchal Blessing. It turns out, the process of divining meaning (pun intended) out of both of those experiences is fundamentally one and the same. Although truth be told, I enjoyed the palm reading a great deal more than my patriarchal blessing. I guess I just never really "identified" with Ephraim. I always fancied myself more of the house of Naphtali... :D