Παντων χρηματων μετρον εστιν ανθρωπος, των μεν οντων ως εστιν, των δε ουκ οντων ως ουκ εστιν - "The measure of all things is Man. Of things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that they are not."

In more modern terms, people see the world as they want to see it. Reality, to the human mind, is what the human mind makes. To a religious person, God is just as real as the man next door, or even more real because that religious person has a close relationship with God, but can't remember his neighbor's name to save his life.

But it's not just religious people who create their own reality. We ALL create our own realities. In John's reality, Mary loves him because he *believes Mary loves him. In Mary's reality John is just a nice guy she can talk to over lunch because that's what she believes. This situation will be liveable and even pleasant for both John and Mary as long as they don't begin to intrude on each other's reality. Now let's imagine John tells Mary he loves her. Mary then explains to John that he's more like a brother to her, and she hopes they can just be friends. They begin to avoid each other and feel a loss. Now their two realities have collided and don't mesh together, causing them both to suffer.

Our first reaction may be to judge John, saying he shouldn't have assumed Mary felt the same way about him as he felt about her. Or we may say that Mary should have seen the signs that John had a crush and not spent so much time with him. The fact is neither John nor Mary have done anything wrong. Their realities were simply inconsistent.

How does this apply to us and Mormonism, and more specifically the Mormons we have to deal with in our personal lives? I believe it is important for us to remember that they live in a distinct reality that we don't agree with. Nevertheless, it is reality to them. This is a fact that, if understood, will make it a lot easier to get along. I think it's important that we establish that it is not appropriate for them to dictate to us what our reality should be. In turn, we need to tolerate the fact that their view on life is not necessarily any more right or wrong than our own, as long as they are not acting as intruders. In my experience, it is highly beneficial to set clear boundaries, e.g. no religious talk at get-togethers. As long as those boundaries are respected, allowing them their happy little world keeps our different realities from colliding and we avoid the conflicts that often plague friends and family with religious differences.

So let me check my take on what you’ve said, TownDrunk. 1) Reality is relative, according to what each person sees. 2) Respect that other people see things differently. 3) All sincerely held views deserve some measure of respect (my way of seeing it). 4) No one has the right to dictate what others sincerely believe. 5) We should follow rules that discourage confrontation that would cause different realities to collide.

I have a different reality. It’s a lot like yours, but diverges at a couple of important spots.

If one view of the world is just as valid and harmless as another, then I agree in letting it slide. Who cares if you have State Farm instead of Geico? And I preemptively forgive all Patriots fans.

But when a world view is harmful, or limiting, or mistaken for lack of facts, or corrupting, or unhealthful, or especially when it’s dangerous, whether that world view intrudes on me or not, my love for my brother, mother, sister and friend compels me to speak.

Mormonism is all of the above. While Mormonism teaches that contention is of the devil, intentionally engaging a loved one’s screwed up world view, and doing so respectfully, risking the friendship and even risking that you may also be wrong, is definitely a loving, non-devilish thing to do. Same goes for political stuff, global climate change, voter’s rights and marriage equality. Where would we be as a nation right now if we’d just accepted California’s prop 8?

The goal in confronting and contending with loved ones is learning how to do it, how to engage in a though provoking way without being as ass, and deciding who is smart enough to want the debate and has the capacity to benefit from it, and so on. When to confront is also a consideration, and what. But my tendency is to delay on these two points until the time and my preparedness are perfect—it never gets there.

I am alive. My ideas are well thought out and supported by solid evidence. I will gently but effectively and without shame, wield my thinking against poorly considered assertions, unsupported theories and outdated world views as long as I am alive. I will artfully, respectfully influence others toward better thinking. I will maintain and even enhance my relationships with others as I pursue this goal.

Sort of a credo for me.

You're quite right. There is a world of difference in my mind between functioning in a society as a whole and functioning in a personal relationship. My comments are directed to getting along with others on a one on one basis. When any dogma tries to take over public policy it will inevitably cause harm to segments of society. One of the main problems we face is that personal views do have an impact on societal norms. Until everyone comes to think the same way, there will exist strife in the larger societal context, i.e. there will always be strife. The question is how to strike a balance between allowing people to believe what they will and encouraging reasoned beliefs that cause as little harm as possible.

I used to keep my mouth shut with my brothers and sisters and parents. They didn't seem to be under the same moratorium. They prayed around me, told church stories around me, had discussions about WOW wisdom issues in earshot, and so on.

I now take their openness as permission for mine. I respond to Facebook faith posts with Facebook non-faith posts, or opinions about Republican hatred of Obama with an honest portrayal of Obama, and so on. So I function with a measure of confrontation with family members. In essence, I'm saying "this is me" and "me" often disagrees with "you" and I will say so.

So I extend it into personal relationships perhaps more than you.

I think it's important to accept friction in personal relationships, contrary to what were taught as Mormons. The rub can exist within a strong bond, and make the bond more resiliant.

I can't agree there is a distinction between society and individuals. The viewpoints of individuals are reflected in societal viewpoints, especially in a democracy. So one can't engage societaly without engaging individually.

Let's go back to the example of John and Mary. An unwarranted assumption is being made here, and that's that John and Mary, upon discovering that their viewpoints diverge, become embarrassed by the situation, avoid each other, feel loss, and the grief associated with loss. That hasn't got to be the case.

In the first place, points of view are not static, they change. Perspectives change, new information, new experiences, education, the influence of others, new opportunities, new insights, all of these can alter points of view. That's the danger of brainwashing cults. They prevent change. Change threatens them, new input threatens them, so they threaten back. Alter your viewpoint--or at least show outwardly that you do--and the hammer comes down. But even so, this board is full of people whose viewpoints have done a 180.

Also, maturing is the process of recognizing that other people've got other needs, and that there's still plenty available for you, even if someone diverges. John can understand Mary isn't the one for him, and still enjoy lunch. Mary can understand it's too painful for John to imagine she's interested, so she doesn't put him in those situations. If either of the people behave in a self-centered way: John pushing Mary to the point of stalking her; Mary needing this "friend" around for emotional support, favors, a sounding-board, and keeping him on the line so her needs are met--one or the other is going to have to grow up, break the cycle of self-centeredness, and move on.

If both people can grow up, realize their needs can be met elsewhere, without the need to control the other person, they can still develop a rewarding relationship even if the relationship becomes something different than it was originally. Things change. Things can change for the better; there's no requirement that things must change for the worse.

gungho's method of engagement through dialogue, even pointed, critical-thinking dialogue, is appropriate and leads to societal change, I think. That was the strategy of Gandhian non-violence: peaceful engagement, not letting harmful individual views clump together and gain power as harmful societal views.

Pythagoras.
I think you conflated his name with "protractor", the angle measuring gizmo you used to scratch your name into school desks. :)

Pythagoras, besides being a mathematician, was head of a religious cult. How much of his mathematics was really his and how much came from his followers is an open question. But, unlike Kolob and all that, the mathematics was legitimate. The religion was nonsense.

He and his followers took over the government of Croton, Italy. It did not go well. The cult was essentially hunted into extinction. Details of Pythagoras' death are unknown, but most versions have his life not ending well. Wikipedia has a dull but serviceable bio.

Protagoras was not the same man as Pythagoras. There's undoubtedly plenty of dirt to be dished on the guy, but none of the above mentioned :)