NOM

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8656 ... faith.html

I really hate the simplistic, strawman approach to describing people who leave the Church. As though they are all the same, leave for the same reasons, and do the same things after they leave.

I also hate that the Deseret News thinks its a good idea to publish a piece with her thoughts about people who leave the Church. It's like "we don't care how people who leave the Church feel about the way we talk about them". It helps create an "us vs. them" mentality. It's insulting, condescending, and divisive.

But what do I expect? It's the Deseret News.

That I do not now attend a Catholic or Baptist church on Sundays does not mean haven't replaced the church with something. It means I've decided to replace the Church with what I feel is a more rational and objective view of the universe, one that doesn't require that I supplicate myself to a being who, if he exists, really should be above expecting or wanting me to do such. When a smoker quits smoking do people lament that they don't replace it with some other addiction? Or do they see it as them replacing their former addiction with a healthier life? I see things in a similar vein, at least where I am concerned.

1. Her: I left the LDS church because they're so controlling"
Me: "in what way is the church controlling?
Her: they tell ppl how 2 dress

The purpose of this kind of drivel is to perpetuate the institutionally cherished fabrication that no one leaves the church for good reasons. Modern milk strippings.

I hate the fact that in this age Tweets are considered authoritative enough to gain traction for a news story. Twitter is a goldmine for sloppy journalism. All you need is a computer screen and you publish any kind of journalism you want.

This young woman is definitely oversimplifying the process of leaving the church. In places her logic actually defeats itself.

Wouldn't it be enlightening if the church (or one of its many proxies) actually published an interview with a mature, well educated, thoughtful individual about the real reasons why people leave the church and their choices of direction afterwards?

But then that would be allowing us to speak for ourselves rather than having the church tell us and the membership what we should be thinking.

But wait....isn't that the big complaint the church has always had about outside people always misrepresenting the church's beliefs and culture? Haven't they always said if you want the truth about Mormonism you should ask us and we'll give it to you straight?

I guess that only goes one way.....

Only an honest organization, run by men and women of real courage with nothing to fear would allow people to speak for themselves.....

I couldn't read the entire article. It was too nauseating. So much wrong. Again, it was written for a Dessert News readership, not a mass population readership. As we continue to transition away, my FIL keeps asking me what church/religion we are going to now. He just can't comprehend the idea of 'No Church'.

Emower wrote: ↑Thu Jul 27, 2017 10:14 am I hate the fact that in this age Tweets are considered authoritative enough to gain traction for a news story. Twitter is a goldmine for sloppy journalism. All you need is a computer screen and you publish any kind of journalism you want.

Twitter is a double edged sword. It informs the masses, allows oppressed people to organize and communicate even within a heavily censored government. It spreads news faster than the traditional media. It's always on. But with the blessings come the curses. Sharing erroneous, harmful, incorrect or just plain dumb information and ideas.

I'm reminded of that scene from Pirates of the Caribbean:


It's interesting that they talk about people leaving SO MUCH. The more they discuss it, the more people will realize that leaving is an option. It doesn't really matter whether the opinion is for or against leaving, what matters is that the discussion IS about leaving.

They act like they don't care, but they are so terrified of it that they can't stop talking about it, othering people who do it, and so on.

Maybe she secretly wants to sin, but writes things like this to keep herself in line?

Thoughtful wrote: ↑Thu Jul 27, 2017 4:14 pm
Maybe she secretly wants to sin, but writes things like this to keep herself in line?

I like the way you think...

Are all the SIsta's cool with me (a male) writing about the relatively painless process of childbirth? We've got four kids so I really understand it.

Seems to me that most people who leave the Church become non-believers. I suspect that is because they have bought into the 'all true or not' approach so thoroughly that they choose the not as their point of reference. No statistics on that, just anecdotes from reading message boards.

moksha wrote: ↑Fri Jul 28, 2017 7:22 pm Seems to me that most people who leave the Church become non-believers. I suspect that is because they have bought into the 'all true or not' approach so thoroughly that they choose the not as their point of reference. No statistics on that, just anecdotes from reading message boards.

To me it seems more of leaving Mormonism takes a certain amount of critical thinking about the religion to find it does not live to what it claims to be. Once those thinking and investigation kills are learned, they are normally not unlearned. When you leave Mormonism, you apply those same critical thinking skills to other religions and in many cases you find the exact same problems with historicity, dogma, etc. Some people are able to find something they can believe in, others cannot.

Just This Guy wrote: ↑Fri Jul 28, 2017 7:52 pm

moksha wrote: ↑Fri Jul 28, 2017 7:22 pm Seems to me that most people who leave the Church become non-believers. I suspect that is because they have bought into the 'all true or not' approach so thoroughly that they choose the not as their point of reference. No statistics on that, just anecdotes from reading message boards.

To me it seems more of leaving Mormonism takes a certain amount of critical thinking about the religion to find it does not live to what it claims to be. Once those thinking and investigation kills are learned, they are normally not unlearned. When you leave Mormonism, you apply those same critical thinking skills to other religions and in many cases you find the exact same problems with historicity, dogma, etc. Some people are able to find something they can believe in, others cannot.

This is a really interesting pair of comments. I think I noticed a correlation. Most people leave the church, because of the history. Those people, who leave over the history, develop critical thinking skills and apply them to other religions.

On the other hand, there are people who leave for other reasons. In my case, how the church handles and the doctrines, policy and culture support abuse. I developed a different set of thinking skills. I developed skills that, for example, notice how visiting teaching grooms women to not establish good boundaries and because members of the church invite themselves over, ask invasive questions and then give a lesson a sister might not want to hear (for her own good). Abuse victims allow themselves to be victims, because they aren't good at establishing boundaries. So, an abuser comes along, gets invasive in her life, starts criticizing her and belittling her (for her own good) and no alarm bells go off, because the behavior is already familiar to her.

So, I notice different things at church and I notice different things at other religions. If I go to a mainstream Christian Church and I hear the doctrine that we are literally nothing without Christ, I hear a doctrine an abuser can leverage very easily to misuse another person. When I go to other denominations or investigate philosophies I pay attention to how emotionally healthy it is.

In my particular case, I've had spiritual experiences and I don't appreciate people giving my experiences the science treatment, because they weren't there, they didn't experience them and they've been a source of strength for me. So, since my exit didn't involve developing critical thinking skills, but emotional intelligence investigation, I have actively sought out other religions and philosophies and the correlation I think I see is

Reason for leaving: History
Skill set developed: critical thinking skills
Application in going forward: all religions fail critical thinking litmus test

Reason for leaving: Abuse issues within the church
Skill set developed: recognizing what essentially amounts to rape culture
Application going forward: in considering another religion or philosophy I look for possible instances of rape culture within that religion or philosophy

I would love to see if this pans out. I would love to see other people with history issues weigh in. I would like to see other people with other issues weigh in.

The more I think about it, it was abuse of power issues that got me started on my path, but it was history that crashed my shelf. So I can see both sides of viewing things.

You do develop new thinking skills when you leave the church and you take those skills with you when you look at where you want to go next.

I would say that how a person thinks in general will play into things more. Men tend to be more analytical thinkers, women more emotional. So that will help to move them along. However everyone has different experiences that put them on the road out of the church. In my case, I dealt with abuse in various forms like overworking for people in power, being a victim of someone's power plays, etc. It was when the Jensen trail exploded that it lead me to history and doctoral issues. I could maybe say that the abuse was a slow burn for me for a long time, but the Jensen got em to look at stuff in detail and from there it was a very quick process to deconstruct what was left once the analytic kicked in.

End of the day, I do think that the history (or lack of verifiable history across most religions) is what lead me to where I am today floating around the Agnosticism/Atheism spectrum.

I think you can say that everyone has some sort of catalyst that starts them on the road and everyone changes their thinking when they leave and applies that revised thinking process to their spirituality across their lives.

Just This Guy wrote: ↑Fri Jul 28, 2017 8:48 pm The more I think about it, it was abuse of power issues that got me started on my path, but it was history that crashed my shelf. So I can see both sides of viewing things.

You do develop new thinking skills when you leave the church and you take those skills with you when you look at where you want to go next.

I would say that how a person thinks in general will play into things more. Men tend to be more analytical thinkers, women more emotional. So that will help to move them along. However everyone has different experiences that put them on the road out of the church. In my case, I dealt with abuse in various forms like overworking for people in power, being a victim of someone's power plays, etc. It was when the Jensen trail exploded that it lead me to history and doctoral issues. I could maybe say that the abuse was a slow burn for me for a long time, but the Jensen got em to look at stuff in detail and from there it was a very quick process to deconstruct what was left once the analytic kicked in.

End of the day, I do think that the history (or lack of verifiable history across most religions) is what lead me to where I am today floating around the Agnosticism/Atheism spectrum.

I think you can say that everyone has some sort of catalyst that starts them on the road and everyone changes their thinking when they leave and applies that revised thinking process to their spirituality across their lives.

Good points.

I personally think historical issues are actually about abuse, too. The hiding of it, the misrepresentation, the sense of being betrayed by the church, etc. Those are actually all abuse.