Recovery Board
: RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum.
Sometimes I wonder. I feel sometimes when someone is talking to me about a deep held belief of theirs such as the Catholic woman I work with who thinks gay marriage is a sin but says she disagrees with her pope on capital punishment.
If I'm to respect a belief system, shouldn't the believer at least be consistent?
In listening to other co-workers talking Star Wars and Star Trek where they disagree is not in canonical things like what planet some character is from or the history detailed in the actual productions of this fiction.
They argue stuff like Mormons could such as was Nephi married or how he didn't get Laban's clothing bloodied. You know stuff that is like Mormon apologist tripe (i.e. tapirs were horses.)
But fundamental beliefs? I really like my Catholic co-worker but I have a hard time respecting her beliefs when she doesn't even hold them all. And I've told her I think her beliefs on gay marriage are wrong. She does act like most Mormons in this regard. It is a conversation ending thing when I express my views.
If I'm to respect a belief system, shouldn't the believer at least be consistent?
In listening to other co-workers talking Star Wars and Star Trek where they disagree is not in canonical things like what planet some character is from or the history detailed in the actual productions of this fiction.
They argue stuff like Mormons could such as was Nephi married or how he didn't get Laban's clothing bloodied. You know stuff that is like Mormon apologist tripe (i.e. tapirs were horses.)
But fundamental beliefs? I really like my Catholic co-worker but I have a hard time respecting her beliefs when she doesn't even hold them all. And I've told her I think her beliefs on gay marriage are wrong. She does act like most Mormons in this regard. It is a conversation ending thing when I express my views.
I always try to make two assumptions about people's beliefs:
1) That they came by them honestly; and
2) That they are internally consistent to the person holding them.
There is no one-size-fits-all philosophy. Most religions and philosophies are very a la carte; you take what you want and ignore/disagree with the rest. When most people go looking for a church, they're not looking for doctrinal 'truths' - they look for a system of belief that most closely parallels their own, and hope that the peripheral benefits (community, friends, etc.) outweigh the issues they disagree with.
Secondly, a lot of problems in politics and religion today stems from how one group thinks another group's philosophies should be interpreted. It's not my place to tell somebody how he/she should interpret his own beliefs or doctrine. To name one such example, Jesus got co-opted as an ACA endorser (see, eg, here: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/28/would-jesus-support-healthcare-reform/). I'm not interested in debating the merits of the ACA, but telling people how they should exhibit their beliefs as part of a belief system you don't subscribe to is a recipe for a lot of misunderstanding.
As far as gay marriage goes, there are a lot of legitimate reasons to believe gay marriage is wrong. People draw the line in different places when it comes to sexuality -- at what age it's appropriate, at what familiar relationship it's appropriate, with which sex of people it's appropriate, and with which number of people it's appropriate. While it may be a dearly-held belief to you, to her it represents a line at a different point on a spectrum. I'm not saying I agree with her, either.
My larger point is this: Your Catholic friend's beliefs are internally consistent to her. You can respect her, even if her views don't maintain consistency to her. We do it all the time. I don't disrespect my coworkers because one's an environmentalist with a carbon footprint 10x my own, or another that talks about cultural diversity while constantly denigrating our Asian workforce. It might not make sense to me, but it makes sense to them, and there's no reason to care about it unless it impacts our relationship.
Put another way, you probably subscribe to a set of beliefs that embrace tolerance and diversity. Some would judge you as not living up to them by not tolerating this woman's diversity of opinion from yours. Would they be correct? Probably not, but at the same time, it exemplifies the trouble we have in attempting to define other's expected behaviors for them.
1) That they came by them honestly; and
2) That they are internally consistent to the person holding them.
There is no one-size-fits-all philosophy. Most religions and philosophies are very a la carte; you take what you want and ignore/disagree with the rest. When most people go looking for a church, they're not looking for doctrinal 'truths' - they look for a system of belief that most closely parallels their own, and hope that the peripheral benefits (community, friends, etc.) outweigh the issues they disagree with.
Secondly, a lot of problems in politics and religion today stems from how one group thinks another group's philosophies should be interpreted. It's not my place to tell somebody how he/she should interpret his own beliefs or doctrine. To name one such example, Jesus got co-opted as an ACA endorser (see, eg, here: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/28/would-jesus-support-healthcare-reform/). I'm not interested in debating the merits of the ACA, but telling people how they should exhibit their beliefs as part of a belief system you don't subscribe to is a recipe for a lot of misunderstanding.
As far as gay marriage goes, there are a lot of legitimate reasons to believe gay marriage is wrong. People draw the line in different places when it comes to sexuality -- at what age it's appropriate, at what familiar relationship it's appropriate, with which sex of people it's appropriate, and with which number of people it's appropriate. While it may be a dearly-held belief to you, to her it represents a line at a different point on a spectrum. I'm not saying I agree with her, either.
My larger point is this: Your Catholic friend's beliefs are internally consistent to her. You can respect her, even if her views don't maintain consistency to her. We do it all the time. I don't disrespect my coworkers because one's an environmentalist with a carbon footprint 10x my own, or another that talks about cultural diversity while constantly denigrating our Asian workforce. It might not make sense to me, but it makes sense to them, and there's no reason to care about it unless it impacts our relationship.
Put another way, you probably subscribe to a set of beliefs that embrace tolerance and diversity. Some would judge you as not living up to them by not tolerating this woman's diversity of opinion from yours. Would they be correct? Probably not, but at the same time, it exemplifies the trouble we have in attempting to define other's expected behaviors for them.
Alpiner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I always try to make two assumptions about
> people's beliefs:
>
> 1) That they came by them honestly; and
> 2) That they are internally consistent to the
> person holding them.
I'm fascinated by your first assumption. It made my wonder if I came by my former Mormon beliefs honestly? I assume since I was indoctrinate from birth that would hold true.
> There is no one-size-fits-all philosophy. Most
> religions and philosophies are very a la carte;
> you take what you want and ignore/disagree with
> the rest. When most people go looking for a
> church, they're not looking for doctrinal 'truths'
> - they look for a system of belief that most
> closely parallels their own, and hope that the
> peripheral benefits (community, friends, etc.)
> outweigh the issues they disagree with.
Obviously this is my problem from being indoctrinated from birth - I assume belief to be consistent and complete like I was taught - follow the prophet blindly. At least I would be consistent with one person's policies and completeness was not of God - continuing revelation. What is wanted it complete obedience for their to be both consistency and completeness in my former beliefs.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I always try to make two assumptions about
> people's beliefs:
>
> 1) That they came by them honestly; and
> 2) That they are internally consistent to the
> person holding them.
I'm fascinated by your first assumption. It made my wonder if I came by my former Mormon beliefs honestly? I assume since I was indoctrinate from birth that would hold true.
> There is no one-size-fits-all philosophy. Most
> religions and philosophies are very a la carte;
> you take what you want and ignore/disagree with
> the rest. When most people go looking for a
> church, they're not looking for doctrinal 'truths'
> - they look for a system of belief that most
> closely parallels their own, and hope that the
> peripheral benefits (community, friends, etc.)
> outweigh the issues they disagree with.
Obviously this is my problem from being indoctrinated from birth - I assume belief to be consistent and complete like I was taught - follow the prophet blindly. At least I would be consistent with one person's policies and completeness was not of God - continuing revelation. What is wanted it complete obedience for their to be both consistency and completeness in my former beliefs.
You are misunderstanding how (most) of the rest of Christianity believes and behaves. In the mainstream Christian churches, it is generally accepted that believers will take a cafeteria approach. Catholics often disagree with the pope. They often debate points of doctrine. There is a joke in Catholicism that a member will go to confession and state, "Bless me father, for I have sinned. I took my birth control pill seven days this past week." They view the pope as a spiritual guide, not a tyrant. Catholic spiritual training develops a strong sense of morality in which believers ulimately tend to make their own decisions about things.
Also keep in mind that the mainstream churches are not quick to discipline nor kick out their flock, because it's not, well, Christian. They also don't have a temple recommend to hold over believers' heads.
You are interpreting how other Christians practice their faith through a Mormon lens.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/27/2014 11:30AM by summer.
Also keep in mind that the mainstream churches are not quick to discipline nor kick out their flock, because it's not, well, Christian. They also don't have a temple recommend to hold over believers' heads.
You are interpreting how other Christians practice their faith through a Mormon lens.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/27/2014 11:30AM by summer.
summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are misunderstanding how (most) of the rest of
> Christianity believes and behaves.
True. Maybe Inerrant Bible believers have similar problems?
> You are interpreting how other Christians practice
> their faith through a Mormon lens.
I know.
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are misunderstanding how (most) of the rest of
> Christianity believes and behaves.
True. Maybe Inerrant Bible believers have similar problems?
> You are interpreting how other Christians practice
> their faith through a Mormon lens.
I know.
I'm Eastern Orthodox and we teach love the sinner, hate the sin. Simple as that. Christ taught us to love one another once again very simple not that hard. It's not our place to judge people have their beliefs and standards no one can change that people are people
I find it hard not to judge people.
I don't get that.
You like her in some aspects, respect her in some aspects, but don't in others.
Why isn't that good enough?
You like her in some aspects, respect her in some aspects, but don't in others.
Why isn't that good enough?
Excellent point.
I love this idea. We are always told to "love the sinner but hate the sin" and next time I hear that I am going to say, "Yes, just as I must love the Mormon but hate the Mormonism."
fundamentard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, just as I must love the
> Mormon but hate the Mormonism."
I say that all the time. I love my wife and kids and I hate their Mormonism.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, just as I must love the
> Mormon but hate the Mormonism."
I say that all the time. I love my wife and kids and I hate their Mormonism.
Of course it is possible.
All humanity is striving to be consistent with our beliefs and we all fail because there are just too many blank spaces.
The idea that a person must be all the way 100% consistent with beliefs is a black-and-white artifact from Mormon thinking. You were taught that there is such a thing as a "pure" person (who is worthy to go to the temple).
There is simply no such thing. We are not black and white, we truly are shades of gray, some days darker than others, always trying to be more authentic, more consistent, more compassionate, whatever.
Judging others is what Mormons do constantly and it is what we all ran from. It sickens the judger as well as the judgee. Jesus spoke against it many times. Mormons created the judgey, tattletale society where home teachers come to spy on you and neighbors report you because they do not actually follow what Jesus taught.
The most important respect you should be thinking about is your own self-respect. Your own behavior is not consistent with your values because you are a human being, flawed like the rest of us. Our biggest task after Mormonism is to learn to love ourselves in our flawed condition, rather than consistently flogging ourselves to "Just Do It' or "Magnify our calling" or "Just go to the Book of Mormon for answers" or whatever.
We are so used to everything being our fault and you can see how that turns outward and becomes criticism of those around us. If we're at fault, well then so are they.
It is possible to flip that script and say instead "I am ok being inconsistent with my beliefs and so are they." No one is totally consistent. Even Buddhists who respect all life eat plants, which are part of "all life," right? Vegetarians come in all varieties, some eschewing milk, eggs, cheese and others make an exception for chicken and some for fish, but no beef, and every other permutation you can think of.
They are all worthy of our respect because it is a personal choice what to believe, even if it is inconsistent with other areas of belief. Otherwise, there would be no Christian scientists. The Christian biologist chooses a faith which he argues against with his daily work because he wants to belong to his tribe. He needs it for his emotional stability.
Who are we to judge? How do we know that without the anchor of his Christianity, he would have a mental breakdown?
Compassion calls to us to acknowledge that other people have a complex internal environment consisting of struggles and factors that we know absolutely nothing about.
People make choices for definite reasons and when we give a person respect for a belief system which is different from what we chose, we acknowledge our ignorance of their priorities and humbly bow to their right to make choices based on information that we have no access to and no right to ask about.
Where most of us exMormons struggle with that is with NOMs. We fancy that we have the information (facts about Mormonism) and we can't understand why they don't just leave. Sure it's hard, but we did it, why can't they?
Perhaps it's more like those Anthony Robbins people who sued him because they walked on coals and got burned. He pushed them, psyched them up, but they weren't really ready, didn't want to do it, but didn't want to look like wimps or losers.
People examine their beliefs for consistency and make adjustments only when they are ready. You did it that way yourself. There is no reason not to respect someone because they are not there yet. They are just the same as you were before you were ready to risk leaving Mormonism.
I don't know about you, but I didn't even SEE any contradictions until I was ready to make a life change. So it's a form of blindness that protects our delicate mental state. Our subconscious doesn't let us see what it doesn't think we can handle.
Best
Kathleen Waters
All humanity is striving to be consistent with our beliefs and we all fail because there are just too many blank spaces.
The idea that a person must be all the way 100% consistent with beliefs is a black-and-white artifact from Mormon thinking. You were taught that there is such a thing as a "pure" person (who is worthy to go to the temple).
There is simply no such thing. We are not black and white, we truly are shades of gray, some days darker than others, always trying to be more authentic, more consistent, more compassionate, whatever.
Judging others is what Mormons do constantly and it is what we all ran from. It sickens the judger as well as the judgee. Jesus spoke against it many times. Mormons created the judgey, tattletale society where home teachers come to spy on you and neighbors report you because they do not actually follow what Jesus taught.
The most important respect you should be thinking about is your own self-respect. Your own behavior is not consistent with your values because you are a human being, flawed like the rest of us. Our biggest task after Mormonism is to learn to love ourselves in our flawed condition, rather than consistently flogging ourselves to "Just Do It' or "Magnify our calling" or "Just go to the Book of Mormon for answers" or whatever.
We are so used to everything being our fault and you can see how that turns outward and becomes criticism of those around us. If we're at fault, well then so are they.
It is possible to flip that script and say instead "I am ok being inconsistent with my beliefs and so are they." No one is totally consistent. Even Buddhists who respect all life eat plants, which are part of "all life," right? Vegetarians come in all varieties, some eschewing milk, eggs, cheese and others make an exception for chicken and some for fish, but no beef, and every other permutation you can think of.
They are all worthy of our respect because it is a personal choice what to believe, even if it is inconsistent with other areas of belief. Otherwise, there would be no Christian scientists. The Christian biologist chooses a faith which he argues against with his daily work because he wants to belong to his tribe. He needs it for his emotional stability.
Who are we to judge? How do we know that without the anchor of his Christianity, he would have a mental breakdown?
Compassion calls to us to acknowledge that other people have a complex internal environment consisting of struggles and factors that we know absolutely nothing about.
People make choices for definite reasons and when we give a person respect for a belief system which is different from what we chose, we acknowledge our ignorance of their priorities and humbly bow to their right to make choices based on information that we have no access to and no right to ask about.
Where most of us exMormons struggle with that is with NOMs. We fancy that we have the information (facts about Mormonism) and we can't understand why they don't just leave. Sure it's hard, but we did it, why can't they?
Perhaps it's more like those Anthony Robbins people who sued him because they walked on coals and got burned. He pushed them, psyched them up, but they weren't really ready, didn't want to do it, but didn't want to look like wimps or losers.
People examine their beliefs for consistency and make adjustments only when they are ready. You did it that way yourself. There is no reason not to respect someone because they are not there yet. They are just the same as you were before you were ready to risk leaving Mormonism.
I don't know about you, but I didn't even SEE any contradictions until I was ready to make a life change. So it's a form of blindness that protects our delicate mental state. Our subconscious doesn't let us see what it doesn't think we can handle.
Best
Kathleen Waters
anagrammy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't know about you, but I didn't even SEE any
> contradictions until I was ready to make a life
> change. So it's a form of blindness that protects
> our delicate mental state. Our subconscious
> doesn't let us see what it doesn't think we can
> handle.
So true. I feel blind a lot of the time about myself.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't know about you, but I didn't even SEE any
> contradictions until I was ready to make a life
> change. So it's a form of blindness that protects
> our delicate mental state. Our subconscious
> doesn't let us see what it doesn't think we can
> handle.
So true. I feel blind a lot of the time about myself.
Anagrammy, I'm taken aback by your every post. I feel like deeply thanking you every time. Your writings are always so in-depth, thoughtful, and beautiful. I hope you're writing a book or something. I hate to think that your thoughts are just getting lost in the history of a bulletin board. I'm not saying that they're wasted here at all... I just wish more people could be exposed to your lucidity.
THanks, Freethought. I am saving some of my more popular posts and will eventually put them together into a book.
Thanks for your kind words and encouragement.
Kathleen Waters
Thanks for your kind words and encouragement.
Kathleen Waters
She is just taking the same stance as any old testament believing Christian takes, However when Jesus was asked what should one do when catching a prostitute Jesus said he who is without sin cast the first stone. Its real simple bible believing Christians have no choice but to love the sinner and hate the sin. If the Bible taught that homo sexuality wasn't a sin then it wouldn't be a sin its that simple.
I didn't write the bible.
I didn't write the bible.
is that like "hate the sin, not the sinner" ?
Yes, I reversed to to fit my beliefs - no sins and no sinners.
> If I'm to respect a belief system
It is neither realistic nor reasonable to expect people to respect all belief systems. It is reasonable (and, I hope, realistic) to be respectful toward people and to respect their freedom to believe what makes sense to them.
If we can't learn to respect people while hating their ideas, we're doomed, because contemptible ideas will always be with us.
It is neither realistic nor reasonable to expect people to respect all belief systems. It is reasonable (and, I hope, realistic) to be respectful toward people and to respect their freedom to believe what makes sense to them.
If we can't learn to respect people while hating their ideas, we're doomed, because contemptible ideas will always be with us.
the right of free will-
taught to children according to my husband. As a Catholic you have the right to disagree or agree, there's no reason to ever believe the pope is infallible, and you have the right to take upon yourself the tenants of the church you believe, or not. Being Catholic is a way of life but it is not a constricted life. Further he said, In the Jewish tradition it's called timshel, which is / mb / free will. No one has the ability or the right to take that from you.
I noticed there are so many different ways, these clubs and traditions, so many different spiritualities. There's been so many schisms, and in America there are so many different cultural traditions within the same religion. Every culture has different celebrations or favored saints, so an American parish may have a multitude of traditions, celebrations that are not common to the entire Catholic creed. They're all praying different prayers in different seasons and order based on their spirituality. So they don't have to be in the same place politically or even spiritually, there's this huge range. There's a tradition and saints about social justice in the same church as these conservatives./
Mormons are like the 'borg.' These people speak in many voices living their lives in some comon dance around the mass, they are not 'borg' Mormons are just amazing they have no choices.
taught to children according to my husband. As a Catholic you have the right to disagree or agree, there's no reason to ever believe the pope is infallible, and you have the right to take upon yourself the tenants of the church you believe, or not. Being Catholic is a way of life but it is not a constricted life. Further he said, In the Jewish tradition it's called timshel, which is / mb / free will. No one has the ability or the right to take that from you.
I noticed there are so many different ways, these clubs and traditions, so many different spiritualities. There's been so many schisms, and in America there are so many different cultural traditions within the same religion. Every culture has different celebrations or favored saints, so an American parish may have a multitude of traditions, celebrations that are not common to the entire Catholic creed. They're all praying different prayers in different seasons and order based on their spirituality. So they don't have to be in the same place politically or even spiritually, there's this huge range. There's a tradition and saints about social justice in the same church as these conservatives./
Mormons are like the 'borg.' These people speak in many voices living their lives in some comon dance around the mass, they are not 'borg' Mormons are just amazing they have no choices.
paintingintheWIN Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mormons are like the 'borg.' These people speak in
> many voices living their lives in some comon dance
> around the mass, they are not 'borg' Mormons are
> just amazing they have no choices.
This is my biggest beef with LDS Inc. cause I hate their rapacious and capricious corporate culture and their thought and soul destroying practices but their Borg like insistence on obedience to their corporate masters is the worst.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mormons are like the 'borg.' These people speak in
> many voices living their lives in some comon dance
> around the mass, they are not 'borg' Mormons are
> just amazing they have no choices.
This is my biggest beef with LDS Inc. cause I hate their rapacious and capricious corporate culture and their thought and soul destroying practices but their Borg like insistence on obedience to their corporate masters is the worst.
When my kids believed in Santa, I didn't love them any less.
When my kids chided me for not believing in Santa, it was just cute.
When my kids chided me for not believing in Santa, it was just cute.
I think she is kinda cute.
I know many Catholics who do not believe as they are told on abortion, gay marriage, etc. I think you can definitely love the believer (of a higher power) and not love the individual beliefs they hold. To me the most important thing is to love thy neighbor as thyself. If a person can not do that, it is pretty hopeless. I will never be able to accept some religions since they think you should be killed if you don't believe like them.
You might be able to love them, but how much do you want to expose yourself to crazy, delusion behavior? It takes a psychological toll to be around someone who is endlessly trying to itch their psychological scar.
YES! It is definitely possible to "Love the believer not the belief" - and you can simply, respectfully, agree to disagree on the beliefs that you do not support
I try to respect people's beliefs if they respect me and mine.
If they listen to me I try to listen to them.
And I try to remember that most of us are hypocrites in some respects, I certainly am. I like to think we're all wildly inconsistent, but maybe I'm just cynical.
That said, I have a hard time tolerating certain statements, like gay marriage is a sin.
I liked what alpiner had to say.
If they listen to me I try to listen to them.
And I try to remember that most of us are hypocrites in some respects, I certainly am. I like to think we're all wildly inconsistent, but maybe I'm just cynical.
That said, I have a hard time tolerating certain statements, like gay marriage is a sin.
I liked what alpiner had to say.
cultivate Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I liked what alpiner had to say.
Me too.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I liked what alpiner had to say.
Me too.
Honestly, members of TSCC can't love you if you don't believe what they believe. They will tolerate you to a point and underneath they're cool and aloof once they know you're not part of their church.
I can love them from a distance, perhaps.
In theory, it works. In practice, that's another story.
I can love them from a distance, perhaps.
In theory, it works. In practice, that's another story.
I love my TBM wife, but I have a hard time respecting her when she gets all apologetic on me. For this reason, I've stopped discussing the church with her. If church makes her happy, that's fine with me. If she chooses blissful ignorance, fine. However, I can't respect her if she studies the issues with the BoM, BoA, etc... and still defends them. In my opinion, ignorance, even if you've wilfully chosen it, is better than stupidity.
Most Mormons never think much about the church's teachings. They attend on Sunday, talk to their "friends", and then go throughout the rest of the week without ever thinking about "the gospel". Once something pushes you to really start thinking about the history and the doctrine, it all falls apart pretty quickly. Those that do think deeply on the doctrine and constantly talk about how beautiful it is are the nut-jobs in the ward that comment 20 times in SS about how they LOVE the BoA, and spout off about intelligences, etc...
Most Mormons never think much about the church's teachings. They attend on Sunday, talk to their "friends", and then go throughout the rest of the week without ever thinking about "the gospel". Once something pushes you to really start thinking about the history and the doctrine, it all falls apart pretty quickly. Those that do think deeply on the doctrine and constantly talk about how beautiful it is are the nut-jobs in the ward that comment 20 times in SS about how they LOVE the BoA, and spout off about intelligences, etc...
+ 1 what else could I say.