See previous posts http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1366222 and http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1365508

To facilitate explaining myself I need to mention neurosis and stages of spiritual development. Neurosis is a term that has somewhat fallen out of use but one that I find quite appropriate in understand human thought and behavior. While psychosis is a loss of being in touch with reality, neurosis is an uncomfortable relationship with reality. Carl Jung said, “Neurosis is always a substitute for legitimate suffering.” Example – A mother knows, at least unconsciously, that her child could get sick and die or die in an accident at any time. Consciously living with this knowledge is legitimate human suffering. If the mother is not able to consciously face this situation it causes neurosis and she may become obsessed with her child’s safety. Her obsession could lead to development problems for the child including, for example, rebellion from his mother, using drugs and dying at a young age.

The following is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._Scott_Peck.
Peck postulates that there are four stages of human spiritual development:
• Stage I is chaotic, disordered, and reckless. Very young children are in Stage I. They tend to defy and disobey, and are unwilling to accept a will greater than their own. They are extremely egoistic and lack empathy for others. Many criminals are people who have never grown out of Stage I.
• Stage II is the stage at which a person has blind faith in authority figures and sees the world as divided simply into good and evil, right and wrong, us and them. Once children learn to obey their parents and other authority figures, often out of fear or shame, they reach Stage II. Many so-called religious people are essentially Stage II people, in the sense that they have blind faith in God, and do not question His existence. With blind faith comes humility and a willingness to obey and serve. The majority of good, law-abiding citizens never move out of Stage II.
• Stage III is the stage of scientific skepticism and questioning. A Stage III person does not accept things on faith but only accepts them if convinced logically. Many people working in scientific and technological research are in Stage III. They often reject the existence of spiritual or supernatural forces since these are difficult to measure or prove scientifically. Those who do retain their spiritual beliefs, move away from the simple, official doctrines of fundamentalism.
• Stage IV is the stage where an individual starts enjoying the mystery and beauty of nature and existence. While retaining skepticism, he starts perceiving grand patterns in nature and develops a deeper understanding of good and evil, forgiveness and mercy, compassion and love. His religiousness and spirituality differ significantly from that of a Stage II person, in the sense that he does not accept things through blind faith or out of fear, but does so because of genuine belief, and he does not judge people harshly or seek to inflict punishment on them for their transgressions. This is the stage of loving others as yourself, losing your attachment to your ego, and forgiving your enemies. Stage IV people are labeled as Mystics.

Also see http://factnet.org/stages-spiritual-growth-m-scott-peck-abridged-richard-schwartz for more information on the subject. Note that a person identified as a Mormon or a Catholic could actually be in any one of the 4 spiritual stages.

A stage 2 person is comfortable with a stage 1 person (the stage one person is their project) but uncomfortable and neurotic with a stage three individual; think of a Fair TBM’s neurotic dancing and mental gymnastics while discussing the Book of Abraham with a stage 3 person. Similarly, a stage 3 person is comfortable with a stage 1 or 2 person but uncomfortable with a stage 4 person. A person operating with an active neurosis loses part of their humanity and ability to think clearly; they become a sales person. My perception of the recent threads on NDEs is that they reflect a neurotic need to convince others and thus reassure the author that reality is confined to their current understanding. It was similar to how scientists were unsettled by Einstein’s theories.

You might be asking, why would I not consider myself neurotic in my defense of things happening that transcend the logical mind? As I have written, I am very Ok with reality if there is no survival after death. I suspect that our egos do not survive intact after death. My experiences, as I have shared in an earlier thread, and the experiences of others that I trust, such as those I have shared from Carl Jung, is that there is a transcending reality consistent with mythical experiences and consistent with what Maslow calls peak experiences. (See http://psychology.about.com/od/humanist-personality/f/peak-experiences.htm)

You most likely know the feeling of talking with a TBM until you are blue in the face with no ability to break through the protective shell of their world view. It has been to same for me in exchanging my points of view on this site over the years with atheists. In my last two threads I have challenged atheists to consider the implications of some of my own experiences, which I shared, and those of Carl Jung on their world view. I haven’t seen any intelligent response to these challenges, just like challenges made to a TBM are ignored. All bluster and no substance. I really, really don’t need atheist to believe like I do. What I would like to ask for is a toning down of the neurotic drive to explain away experiences that are completely out of the ball park to one’s own experience. I would like for a person coming out of Mormonism who has an interest in mysticism to not be belittled. Is this too much to ask for?

Years ago when I first read about M. Scott Peck’s 4 stages of spirituality I excitedly shared them on this site. The response to my thread left me feeling like I had stepped on an ant hill. I would like this not to happen to others like me coming out of Mormonism.

Let's try it a third time.

Obviously it needs to be restated.

"AB" you will find a more sympathetic audience here if you talk about your own experiences instead of attempting to lecture. Lectures may be great if you are teaching a class but they fall flat here. This is not your classroom and you are not the Prof here. These are adults (for the most part) with their own experiences and paths out of mormonism as are you. Discussion about your OWN path is what this place is about.

So how about you step down off the podium and start working some "I" statements in your posts.

I agree to an extent with Susan, but I enjoyed the passages you quoted. Very interesting posts. There's lots of informational posting here. Steve Benson does it often and well.

You could have related it to your own experiences, and you could have made your point, if any, more concisely. You also can't expect everyone or anyone to agree with you, and at some point you just have to let it go.

Keep reading and studying; you cast a wide net and may come to some surprising conclusions.

"All bluster and no substance." What was the question again, preferably in 20 words or less?

A few things...

You don't own this site, you don't control it's content nor should you. As I stated before, the people who own this site have been doing it a long time, judging by the post rates, the google presence and other factors, they seem to be doing a pretty good job and it sure looks like they know what they are doing.

The admins have told you three times now that you are walking a fine line and you don't seem to want to listen. You haven't shared anything of yourself here. For all we know you're a preacher for another church trying to use this form to recruit for your congregation. That's how you're coming across, try sharing and holding a conversation instead of lecturing.

So, Stop preaching, start sharing. You are talking AT us, not communicating WITH us. For example, you never respond in a thread to any of the questions or points that are brought up, you simply start a new thread with a new lecture, that's not communication, that's preaching. You seem to want open ideas, as long as they are your ideas.

Hmmmm. You've ignored three requests from the administrator and you want to make requests for us? Ever look up the definition of "irony?"

No one is going to wade through pages and pages of dense prose for points unknown. Reread your first post, the conclusion has little, if anything to do with the text, or at least what I skimmed.

What is it that you want to say? Anyone can write hundreds of pages, it takes work to be concise.

He believed that Satan existed. See wikipedia* re his book People of The Lie. I picked it up out of curiosity at the library once. When I realized how delusional he was I lost all interest.

Wikipedia entry: "Eventually, after having been referred several possible cases of possession and being involved in two exorcisms, he was converted to a belief in the existence of Satan. Peck considered people who are possessed as being victims of evil, but of not being evil themselves. Peck however considered possession to be rare, and human evil common."

I am not saying that he was mistaken in everything he wrote. I am saying he was delusional and by definition did not understand himself to be so.

The pope, by the way, is reported to be very concerned with the devil and speaks about him often. Funny, that has been left out of the media coverage. The press does love a star. Mother Teresa was also their creation. A little reading can clear that up for those with inquiring minds.

Titanic Survivor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He believed that Satan existed. See wikipedia* re
> his book People of The Lie. I picked it up out of
> curiosity at the library once. When I realized how
> delusional he was I lost all interest.

I had the same reaction.

It appears that I have hit 3 foul balls and I want to be sure that I understand where I went wrong. Let me give a theoretical example of what I now believe is not allowed on the site in order to be sure I got it. If, let us say, I get a burr under my bottom to write about why NDEs are only just a brain thing, something that I have no experience with, but a subject that interests me, I should just set on my hands. Have I finally got it? I realize that I have made mistakes and don't want to find out what happens with 4 foul balls. Please tell me where I am wrong if I still have a misunderstand!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/30/2014 05:49PM by ab.

I'll take this one.

No, not even close, but I suspect you actually know that. Now you're trying to be a martyr. Get down off the cross already. We need the wood.

There are a number of people here who are fairly active posters on topics you say you are interested in. Steve Benson verbally beats them about the head and shoulders regularly, but it doesn't seem to slow them down or dampen their enthusiasm, which IMO is as it should be.

Go back and read Susan's posts again. You sound like a reasonably smart person. You'll figure it out.

And the cross. Now. Jeez.

I do think the attacks by atheists do get a little strident. And that is an important point you make.

please report it with either the REPORT button or to ExMoLight@gmail.com

Ya think?

I'd say more than a little....