Hello everyone,
I recently wrote post on my blog about my journey out of Mormonism, and my recovery process. For some background, I was hard-core Mormon until young adulthood, when I discovered real church history and subsequently left the church. I had a long period of exploration and struggling, but I eventually pulled through, and I am now a nondenominational Christian and immensely grateful that I have left Mormonism (though it took a long time to feel that way.) For more details about my story, which you may find helpful especially if you're inclined to stay religious but don't know if it's possible, you can visit my blog at https://mantarayideas.blogspot.com/ and look up the post "Leaving Mormonism felt like a tragedy, but has been a godsend"

I just love these out-of-the-frying-pan-into-the-fire threads.

Pigs in a blanket fry them like bacon.

Sounds good
Taste good.
Smells good.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/23/2017 10:23PM by Cpete.

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I just love these out-of-the-frying-pan-into-the-fire threads.

Well, according to her blog post, Dave, the OP did consider herself atheist for a period of time, but moved on from that as she considered new information (including nature and science) that was meaningful to her.

IMO the entire (and perhaps unstated) point of the OP's blog post is that *people* should take ownership of their beliefs (whatever those beliefs happen to be,) and not hand over authority to any man-made institution. It's a valuable point of view, and one that I think applies widely.

@Dave the Atheist

You said "I just love these out-of-the-frying-pan-into-the-fire threads"

You immediately go passive aggressive by saying that you love these kinds of posts when we know you dont. If you dont like the thread then why were you in such a rush to comment. You make it seem like you are the one with unresolved issues. Other atheists seem to be able to temper their reactions to other worldviews.

He was being sarcastic. Though sarcasm can be used by passive-aggressive people, it is an error to claim that because someone is being sarcastic, they are being passive-aggressive.

isthechurchtrue Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @Dave the Atheist
>
> You immediately go passive aggressive by saying
> that you love these kinds of posts when we know
> you dont. If you dont like the thread then why
> were you in such a rush to comment. You make it
> seem like you are the one with unresolved issues.

I can't speak for the person you are questioning, but I've seen this phenomenon way too often with atheists. I am atheist, or non-theist if you wish, but do not bother with atheist organizations, discussions, etc., any more. I've found many, though certainly not all, of them pretty nasty, vitriolic, individuals. Some of it is undoubtedly born of being victimized by religious organizations or people and, on that point, more sympathetic I could not be. But the constant negativity and hateful rhetoric wears thin after a while.

Did you look at Christian history?

The Crusades: Christians Killing non-Christians for living on Christian holy lands.

The Inquisitions: Christians killing non-Christians for being non-believers.

The Reformation: Christians killing Christians for being the wrong sort of Christians.

Then there is the whole first half of the Bible which describes the Christian God before Christ was born and it is ugly.

I don't see how someone can leave TSCC for history issues then ignore the history issues of the church they choose.

Actually, it is much easier for a person to leave Mormonism if they don't have to leave Christianity. Many of us are very attached to Jesus and are fearful of becoming the degenerate godless apostate so often described from the pulpit. We will serve Satan.

Once the true personality has been recovered; once an independent life based on who you love and what you're interested in has been established, the same critical thinking which undid the senseless faith in an undeserving corporation will surface again.

It is an awakening that is different for each person. Some cannot leave the bosom of Christ--they have be Christian in order to consider themselves a good person. And that's fine. They are far better off as a non-denominational Christian in a local church, which is like a real tribe and replaces the awkward ward structure of Mormonism.

In many ways I wish I could have kept a simplistic faith since I really liked many of the rituals, but alas my mind just love, love, loved that critical thinking. It kept asking questions until I became the happy skeptic that I now am.

You really find out who you really are when you detach from the promise of everlasting life for being "good." Are you good any way? And what, exactly, is "good?"



Kathleen

Yes, always! :)

Hello,
I am very familiar with all of the horrible atrocities committed by Christians at various points in history, and I am also aware of every terrible story in the Old Testament (e.g. Lot offering his daughter up to be raped by a gang of total strangers.) My take on this is that organized religion (with all of the meetings, ceremonies, rituals, holy writing, etc.) is a mix of God-inspired and human-inspired components. So, I believe that God inspires individuals to know certain things or believe certain things, and these individuals form religions. After a formal "religion" is established, the people who participate in it are imperfect humans, who will make mistakes and sometimes deliberately do horrible things in the name of their religion. I don't take this as a sign that the founding key principles of that religion must be false. I take that as a sign that humans mess up, and that labeling oneself as a religious person does not prevent one from messing up. Religious people can do horrible things, and atheists can do horrible things; similarly, religious people can do good things, and atheists can do good things. Hence, I am Christian in that I believe in Christ, but I also do NOT think that the actions of all Christians who have ever existed were good, and as I mentioned in my original post, I do NOT think that the Bible should be nitpicked down to individual words or isolated occurances. I also don't think everyone in the Bible is a "good person." As I mentioned, I take broad themes out of the Bible as truth, e.g. love your neighbor. I see Biblical prophets as fallible human beings who had a divine experience but were still able to make mistakes and often did make mistakes. With Mormonism, one of my HUGE issues was that all of the church history issues were hushed up and ignored, and the modern leadership of the church directly lied to people about what happened in the church's past - clearly NOT something a "One True Church" would do. I hope this clarifies my position, and I understand that you will probably still disagree with me vehemently, but that is fine. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion and everyone takes their own path to determine their beliefs.

Thanks for posting your story. I'm not sure if you're a newcomer to this forum, but as you can see we have a somewhat vocal atheist contingent. Some of them are not pleased when one of us leaves Mormonism but retains a theistic belief. They're pretty sure that atheism is the one true non-belief, and will bear their testimony to that effect whenever a contrary belief appears.

I read your story and could relate to much of it. I'm always intrigued by those personal moments like yours when you ran off into the woods and discovered that carving on a tree. Mine was entirely different, but a cool piece of my personal puzzle in building a concept of reality that had helped bring together the various pieces in a way that makes sense.

I can particularly relate to the pivot you described as, "I transitioned from reading 'all the disturbing things I never knew about Mormon church history' to 'all the things I never learned about Christianity or religion in general.'" When I made that transition, C.S. Lewis was also a great help and opened the door to a free examination of the faith.

I hope we'll see more from you here.

Thank you!

I have found it very interesting to see how many people, when examining Mormonism and it's mystical, supernatural, visionary claims, can discount it (claim duped, they are liars, a cult, etc.), but accept the same type of claims, organization, leadership, etc. in another religion as superior.
Some even miss the fact that Mormonism is built on Christianity and the need for a savior.

That's human nature. People find what they need and works for them at different times in their life. And, the beauty of faith based beliefs is that they are part of our freedoms.

After a while, most Christians get fed up with the atheists "one indisputable settled-science 'truth,'" and wander off. A Christian who hasn't posted in a long time, "Arm To the Triangle," once said (paraphrase), "It's like Mormonism's last 'Gotcha!!' -- 'If you can't believe in God with us, we'll poison your soul so that you can't possibly believe in God anywhere else.'"

Veritessalee, you might like to check out Lynn Wilder's autobiography, "Unveiling Grace," in which she relates her pilgrimage from BYU faculty to doubt to faith in the Biblical Jesus.

Illigetimi non carborundum!

I think pretentiousness is something that gets baked into us. We're culturally conditioned to take up beliefs and hang onto them. It's a source of confidence that allows people to get things done. Sometimes that entails a body count, but the job gets done because when you know you're right you tend to do stuff.

Some of the Atheists here display the same confidence. That's the dregs of Mormonism, that certainty that you know something. The tool-using ape is a fabricating species. We fabricate things and use them. Food, clothing, shelter, beliefs. Cults inhibit the exploratory process so you become dependent on belief. We will always walk funny because we grew that way.

I don't know what I believe next, but my current interpretation of the shadows on the cave wall is that Jesus is a story. Depending on the whims of history, we could be worshiping Frodo Baggins. Jesus is a nice story, so nice they told it a dozen times that we know of. But, let's not discount stories. We are our own stories in a sense. Stories may emerge for divine reasons. The Jesus archetype - how real is it? Does it have a mystical life of its own, that propagates itself through stories so as to will itself into existence?

Joe Smith, that's a whole other story.

caffiend Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> After a while, most Christians get fed up with the
> atheists "one indisputable settled-science
> 'truth,'"...

Misrepresenting atheism (and atheists) again, huh?

After all this time?

For the OP: congratulations on thinking your way out of mormonism. I hope you understand why it's difficult for many of us to apply the "intellectual" moniker to a believer in christianity, since (as many others have pointed out) an honest, objective approach to evidence and history brings up the same problems with christianity as mormonism has.

Not that we begrudge you your "faith." Whatever gets you through the day, as long as you don't use it to harm others, is OK with us. If it works for you, enjoy. Have a great life. We're just pointing out that calling it "intellectual" is more than a bit of a stretch...:)

Thank you for the recommendation - I will check out that book!

I wish a few board atheists would accept that some people believe and can still be critical thinkers and that all religions dont require the mindless faith that Mormonism requires. I am probably dreaming ,but a little tolerance would be nice.

For the OP, there are believers here and not just Christians. There are also a lot live and let live atheists. Unfortunately those who chose to post are not part of that group.Dont let a few bigots drive you off.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/24/2017 12:53AM by bona dea.

Yep. Watch out for the big bad Atheist boogeyman.

No, Dave, just you and a couple of others.Most atheists here dont jump into innocuous conversations between believers with disparaging remarks.I would be just as critical of a Christian who treated an inoffensive conversation between atheists in a similar manner. Also, atheists who dont go out of their way to be insulting are fine by me.

christians who don't go out of their way to be insulting are fine by me.

It's just you and a few others.

Uh, I am not a believer.

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wish a few board atheists would accept that some
> people believe and can still be critical thinkers
> and that all religions dont require the mindless
> faith that Mormonism requires. I am probably
> dreaming ,but a little tolerance would be nice.

I wish you'd stop generalizing.

Given the books the OP has on her page, and the reasons given there for believing, "critical thinking" isn't involved.

The OP may very well be a damn fine critical thinker in other areas, but it's quite clear that hasn't been applied to her "faith." Which is most often the case.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> The OP may very well be a damn fine critical
> thinker in other areas, but it's quite clear that
> hasn't been applied to her "faith." Which is most
> often the case.


Are you aware of any Christian intellectuals that you respect as having a valid embrace of their faith without compromising either their embrace of Jesus or their intellectual judgment? In your world view, is such a thing possible?

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are you aware of any Christian intellectuals that
> you respect as having a valid embrace of their
> faith without compromising either their embrace of
> Jesus or their intellectual judgment? In your
> world view, is such a thing possible?

I don't have a "world view."

No, I don't know anyone with "faith" in "Jesus" that justifies it with "intellectual judgment" that doesn't use dishonesty or arguments from ignorance/incredulity (and often other fallacies).

I do know a number of "intellectuals" who believe in "Jesus," but that don't justify it "intellectually" -- and usually they admit that they can't, and that it's emotional, not intellectual. Those folks I respect for their honesty.

Are you aware of a single "intellectual" argument for belief in "Jesus" as "divine/god/savior" that doesn't use fallacy, ignorance, or dishonesty? I've never seen one. The OP's references to C.S. Lewis, Lee Strobel, etc. certainly don't fit that.

Perhaps, Hie, but on the other hand her blog post was written without an agenda to convert. She did the atheist route. She is not trying to convince you or anyone else. She doesn't care what you believe or don't believe. She expresses tolerance for all points of view. She's just sharing her story/journey.

Honestly, I think this thread is a good example of why believers often don't feel safe nor welcome on this board. It doesn't seem to matter if they think atheism is a valid option. It doesn't matter if they are tolerant of all points of view. Apparently they MUST be $#@^ upon.

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Perhaps, Hie...

If so, please give a reference. I'd like to see one.

> ...but on the other hand her blog post
> was written without an agenda to convert. She did
> the atheist route. She is not trying to convince
> you or anyone else. She doesn't care what you
> believe or don't believe. She expresses tolerance
> for all points of view. She's just sharing her
> story/journey.

OK. I didn't say word one about any agenda or whether or not she was trying to convert anyone. Whether or not she cares what I believe is irrelevant. I didn't criticize her or her beliefs, or her "right" to believe what she wants, or how tolerant she is or isn't. So why bring any of those up?

I simply (and honestly) pointed out that the "intellectual" label is problematic. She can agree with that or not, she can ignore my post if she wants.

> Honestly, I think this thread is a good example of
> why believers often don't feel safe nor welcome on
> this board. It doesn't seem to matter if they
> think atheism is a valid option. It doesn't matter
> if they are tolerant of all points of view.
> Apparently they MUST be $#@^ upon.

I think that's ridiculous.
Nobody "$#@^" upon anyone.
She publicly posted her views, and asked us to go read them.
I responded with some comments on her publicly posted and asked to be read views. Why is that a problem? If you don't feel "safe or welcome" if someone comments on your views, why post them publicly? 'Cause no matter what your views are, SOMEBODY is going to disagree with them. I don't buy this whole "it's not safe or welcoming to disagree with somebody" stuff. Frankly, I simply see it as a desire to get people who don't agree with you to shut up. Where's the "tolerant of all views" in that? And if the OP is "tolerant of all points of view," why would they have a problem hearing other points of view?

Finally, why don't you let the OP speak for herself, instead of doing it for her?

If people want to quibble with the word, "intellectual," then fine, whatever. But:

>>Finally, why don't you let the OP speak for herself, instead of doing it for her?

Because I feel that a longtime board member should speak up to defend a newbie. And she may be long gone from this board as so many believers are who have been made to feel unwelcome here.

And honestly Hie, my quibble is not with you specifically. It's more the overall tone of the atheist responses on this thread. And this is to an OP, who on her blog post (as I previously noted) was nothing but kind, respectful, understanding, and tolerant of atheism.

The underlying TONE of the responses that she got (and that believers often get) were along these lines:

*You are stupid for still believing.
*You are intellectually lazy.
*You didn't look far enough.
*You didn't read enough.

Etc., etc., etc. Notice I didn't say that these were the actual words that the atheists used. But IMO it is and was the TONE of the responses.

I get tired of it. I get tired that we chase believers off who have a live-and-let-live attitude. IMO, it becomes not a debate, but an attack on someone who has simply chosen differently.

>>Nobody "$#@^" upon anyone.

My point of view is that they did.

I just wish that the atheists on this board would try to use a little more finesse in their responses to a believer. Perhaps something along the lines of, "I made the same journey you did, but took it a little bit further. I came to the conclusion that Christianity is also myth, for [reasons.] But I respect that you came to a different conclusion. Good luck to you on your journey." Something like that. Something that reflects respect and not contempt.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/24/2017 03:07PM by summer.

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Etc., etc., etc. Notice I didn't say that these
> were the actual words that the atheists used. But
> IMO it is and was the TONE of the responses.

OK.
Maybe you might consider that what you perceive as the "tone," since it differs from the words used, might be coming from YOU rather than from the posts.

Just a thought. :)

LOL. I did consider that, but thanks! :) I am simply putting all those years of instruction by very diligent and thorough English teachers to use.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/24/2017 03:09PM by summer.

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LOL. I did consider that, but thanks! :) I am
> simply putting all those years of instruction by
> very diligent and thorough English teachers to
> use.

"Tone" is very hard to guess on a text-only forum.
For example, Dave's post above about fires and frying pans might, in person, be accompanied by a wink and a friendly pat on the back...or it might be accompanied by a roll of the eyes and a dismissive "tone." Since we can't see Dave, we don't know. So why guess at "tone?" Why not just ask, if the "tone" is important to you?

I would think your thorough English teachers might have said, at some point, to go by what was written rather than what you thought was implied...? Or at least they might have if they'd hung out on internet forums ;-)

>>I would think your thorough English teachers might have said, at some point, to go by what was written rather than what you thought was implied...?

Oh heck no, unless you are reading an instruction manual, you always have to be alert for what may be implied. Writers are always making choices for whatever reason. Speaking as someone who has taught reading comprehension full time for grades 1-6, I teach skills every year including making inferences, drawing conclusions, and finding tone. I tell my students that authors don't always tell you everything directly -- sometimes you have to put on your detective hat and look at clues.

So IMO the tone of many atheist responses on this board and on this thread is one of disrespect for believers. Not disagreement -- disrespect. And my conclusion is that the frequent tone of disrespect tends to chase off many members and potential members. I am aware that there are those who will disagree with me.

I agree with summer. Not everyone on this board wants to constantly read that anybody on this board with faith in God is WRONG! We have heard you over and over and over again. We understand what you believe. We are trying to come to terms with what we believe. We would like to hear someone else's opinion. Why do you feel the need to dominate every conversation?

leslie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree with summer. Not everyone on this board
> wants to constantly read that anybody on this
> board with faith in God is WRONG! We have heard
> you over and over and over again. We understand
> what you believe. We are trying to come to terms
> with what we believe. We would like to hear
> someone else's opinion. Why do you feel the need
> to dominate every conversation?

a) I have never, ever, not once said anybody with faith in god is wrong. Not on this board or anywhere else.

b) I don't have any beliefs to understand.

c) there are plenty of other opinions posted on every single topic besides "atheist" ones.

d) why, if I or another atheist comments on something, is it a "need to dominate every conversation," but if a believer comments, it's not?

>"Not everyone on this board wants to constantly read that anybody on this board with faith in God is WRONG!"

As far as I can tell ificouldhietokolob has never told anyone that they are "wrong" to have faith in God. In fact in this very thread he's stated a couple of times, "if that works for you, great". I've also noticed that in posts where people who believe talk about their faith and how it's impacted their lives, he generally doesn't jump in. Where he's bound to state something is when someone (believer or not) says something factually incorrect or with a logical fallacy. Even then he doesn't attack the person he points out the problem with the statement.

This is a good thing, especially on a board like this. People are questioning their faith and looking to figure out what to do. Understanding the difference between logic and emotion can be a very important part of that journey for people.

>"We understand what you believe."

I have to say that this is somewhat ironic, because in stating it, you prove that's not true. Most atheists on this board, including ificouldhietokolob have repeatedly pointed out that we don't "believe" anything. So, by stating that you understand what we "believe" you show that you don't.

Hello,
I'm more than happy to address your concerns. It sounds like you primarily dislike my use of the word "intellectual." My main reason for choosing that word is to connote that I read content produced by other humans from both sides of a debate, thought about what they said, and then drew my own conclusion. Critically thinking about the work of others is "intellectual" and not "emotional." Many of the books I cited have a mixture of "logical arguments" and "personal experiences". I did find some of the logical arguments compelling after thinking about them; it is perfectly within your rights to find those arguments stupid after you consider them yourself, but I don't think that makes you any "more intellectual" or "less intellectual" than I am. You looked at the same arguments - you just drew a different conclusion. I work full-time as a scientist at a major research university and fully understand the difference between "thinking" and "feeling" about something. I also did mention in my blog post several subjective experiences that are not "intellectual" but rather emotional/spiritual, and I mentioned clearly that these were part of my decision process. So I am not trying to "hide" that there were emotional components to my decision. My decision was a mixture of logical thinking and emotions. I don't think that makes it any less valid. To draw a parallel between science and religion, there are a lot of times in science when the next step is a clear, logical outcome of previous steps; but there are times, too, when you just "have a feeling" that something is going to work, and you try it. The discoveries you make after trying something on a "gut feeling" are no less valid than the discoveries you make after trying something logical. Similarly for my personal take on religion. I am not attacking your beliefs at all, I am merely stating my own beliefs. I am sure that you also have put an immense amount of thought (and probably, being human, some emotions too) into deciding what you believe.

veritessalee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hello,
> I'm more than happy to address your concerns. It
> sounds like you primarily dislike my use of the
> word "intellectual." My main reason for choosing
> that word is to connote that I read content
> produced by other humans from both sides of a
> debate, thought about what they said, and then
> drew my own conclusion. Critically thinking about
> the work of others is "intellectual" and not
> "emotional." Many of the books I cited have a
> mixture of "logical arguments" and "personal
> experiences".

Thanks for the reply.

I've read every one of the books you had up there. My point very simply was that while you may find the emotional content compelling -- which is entirely subjective and entirely up to you -- the "logical arguments" aren't. Logical, that is. They're sometimes subtly, sometimes outrageously fallacious. Lewis being on the outrageous end :)

> I did find some of the logical
> arguments compelling after thinking about them; it
> is perfectly within your rights to find those
> arguments stupid after you consider them yourself,
> but I don't think that makes you any "more
> intellectual" or "less intellectual" than I am.

I didn't call any of them "stupid," nor did I say or imply that I was any more intellectual than you.
It's simply a fact that the "logical arguments" listed aren't logical because they contain fallacies -- one of the wonderful things about logic is that it isn't subjective, that fallacies negate the logic of an argument, and that what fallacies are and which are used are subject to clear "rules."

> You looked at the same arguments - you just drew a
> different conclusion. I work full-time as a
> scientist at a major research university and fully
> understand the difference between "thinking" and
> "feeling" about something.

I (and many others) consider them as the logical arguments they claim to be, and given the rules of logic, point out their failing as such. I haven't got a clue what reasons you used to consider them valid logical arguments -- so I won't presume to know. I'll just point out that they're not, that it's a demonstrable fact they're not, and that your achievements in science and/or other areas -- while admirable -- don't prevent you from making logical errors in reasoning. You might consider going over them again with a more objective eye, or not -- up to you. But the errors are there.

> I also did mention in
> my blog post several subjective experiences that
> are not "intellectual" but rather
> emotional/spiritual, and I mentioned clearly that
> these were part of my decision process. So I am
> not trying to "hide" that there were emotional
> components to my decision.

Yes, I know, I read your post. I hope you noticed that I didn't imply in any way that you were attempting to "hide" those.

> My decision was a
> mixture of logical thinking and emotions.
> I don't
> think that makes it any less valid.

I also didn't at any point question the "validity" of your decision, in fact I made it a point to say that it WAS your decision, and that whatever your decision was for you is fine.
My issue is simply declaring demonstrably fallacious logical arguments themselves as logically valid arguments. They're not.

> To draw a
> parallel between science and religion, there are a
> lot of times in science when the next step is a
> clear, logical outcome of previous steps; but
> there are times, too, when you just "have a
> feeling" that something is going to work, and you
> try it. The discoveries you make after trying
> something on a "gut feeling" are no less valid
> than the discoveries you make after trying
> something logical.

If the discovery is backed by ample evidence, and the scientific method has been followed, absolutely.
If the discovery is claimed using fallacy, and without verifiable evidence, that's a different story. :)

> Similarly for my personal take
> on religion. I am not attacking your beliefs at
> all...

Nor was I attacking yours...

> I am merely stating my own beliefs. I am sure
> that you also have put an immense amount of
> thought (and probably, being human, some emotions
> too) into deciding what you believe.

My decision was not to "believe." Anything. But to only accept claims based on evidence, with little or no emotion. To see the universe as it can be demonstrated to be, not by what I (or anyone else) wants it to be.

Your decision was different. As I said, if that works for you, great. Enjoy. It's up to you if you want to reconsider the "logical arguments" again...or not. Whether you do or don't, there's no harm pointing out fallacies in them, is there? That's just being honest and open, right?

I am a 'non religious' believer! I believe in God, after life, spirits, eternity, etc.

I was Mormon then to a small extent 'Christian' then no religion.

I 'believe' for me Mormonism/Christianity gave me the basic desire to find the 'truth'. In that sense they were helpful for a time.

I appreciate believers and non believers on this board and like what they each can contribute. I have been 'inspired' to put more effort in certain areas because of some of the things said on this board.

I am on a number of 'spiritual' board where I get 'no arguments' with my 'experiences' or beliefs and get a tremendous 'spiritual' boost and 'inspiration' from. However, I also still come back here to be 'inspired'.

I was a Mormon for the first half of my life.

These days I'm a practicing Jew albeit with my Christian faith still intact.

I'm comfortable being both. Christ was himself a Jew who taught from his wellspring of Jewish faith and beliefs.

My faith as my spirituality is very important to me. It helps to keep me grounded.

Not sure where I'd be if I hadn't been raised a Mormon. Would I be as questioning or as searching now? It did give me a foundation of faith. For that I'm thankful for in my upbringing.

It was a stepping stone, like a learning curve for me. I'm so very glad there is more to life and spirituality than the false teachings of a false prophet.

There is no man made truth. Do what works, but the bible is allegory, as are other collections of human thought such as the Baghavad Gita. I prefer to trust nature. It's 'real.' Everything else boils down to someone seeking power and your money. Love. Live. Be. Do you really need to be a follower?

She does trust nature to teach her. Did you read her blog post? It's very interesting.

What a lovely, interesting blog post, Veritessalee! Thank you for sharing it here. Even though I am a culturally-Christian nevermo, many parts of what you wrote resonated with me.

You wrote:

>>Every morning when I woke up, I had a brief moment of peace and clarity when my brain wasn’t fully awake, and then it felt like someone dropped a block of cement on my chest as I remembered the disaster that was going on in my own head.

Wow! That sounds exactly how I felt in the weeks after my mom died -- that the only bits of peace that I got were in the first few moments after I awakened each day. If you think about it, leaving a highly controlling church such as the Mormon church may very well feel like a death. It is the death of your world view. But in the Christian narrative, out of death comes life -- a new life.

>>I was no longer afraid that ideas could destroy me, because I’d experienced having all my ideas destroyed and I was still standing and actively forming new ideas.

Isn't it exhilarating to realize that you can change how you think about things? That you were wrong about something, and now you are willing to explore? Or that you just don't know, and are willing to entertain a new way of viewing something?

>>When I was Mormon, I was mentally much more judgmental when I observed other people making life choices I disapproved of. I assumed that their bad choice made them a "bad person." (Of course at the time, I didn't consider myself harmfully judgmental at all.) Now, I still classify various actions as "good" or "bad" but I don't automatically classify people I barely know as "good" or "bad" on the basis of observing a single action. I realize that only an omnipotent Being can be a fair judge, because they can consider a person’s actions in the context of that person's entire life, upbringing, and inner motivations, whereas I certainly do not have that context.

I went through the same journey, but in a different manner. For me, it has been my experience working two decades as an urban teacher that made me into a more tolerant person. My expression is, "That person does not need my permission to be happy." Or sometimes I say to myself, "It's a big world, and there is room for everyone."

---------------------------------------------

Welcome to the board! I hope that you keep posting. I love your faith journey.

Oh, and I learned a whole lot about bearded dragons! That is a must-read article for anyone thinking of keeping one for a pet.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/24/2017 09:36AM by summer.

Thank you!! I am happy to hear that you related to some of my experiences and that you enjoyed the post :)

Hi there, could you elaborate on what you mean by intellectual? I read your post and I can follow your journey but I would label it spiritual, open-minded, curious rather than intellectual, which I associate with more substance, ideas, analysis, criticism.

Your post seems rather superficial to me. Nature is beautiful therefore God; attaching meaning to coincidences; the one-sided selection of books.

For me, the hallmark of intellectualism is exploring different ideas and opposing views. I don't see a lot of that in your post. For an exmo, the transition from the strictness of Mormonism to non-denominational Christianity is huge but if you think about it, you only moved from the edge of the circle of Christianity somewhat more to the middle.

Which is fine if it makes you happy, but what about everything that's ouside that circle?

The Taoists learned and developed their beliefs (and rather intricate philosophy) through close observation of nature.

The OP did learn about all religions (which to me should be a part of anyone's comprehensive education,) but then selected materials that were personally meaningful to her and that advanced her own faith journey.

I'm not very familiar with Taoism. What did they find out about nature that still holds up today?

To put in in the crudest, simplest terms: You are captaining a sailboat, which is your life. You can try to forge a direct path to where you want to go, and you may or may not get there. Or you can observe the wind and work with it to get to where you want to go (albeit not always directly.)

I like to think of the philosophy as "how things work, which is not always how you would wish them to work."

---------------------------------------------------


The "Tao Te Ching" by Lao-tzu is a classic Taoist text that introduces the philosophy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao_Te_Ching

"Tao: The Chinese Philosophy of Time and Change" by Philip S. Rawson -- Now out of print, but does an excellent job of relating Taoist philosophy to Taoist art, which I think is essential to understanding Taoism:

https://www.alibris.com/Tao-The-Chinese-Philosophy-of-Time-and-Change-Philip-S-Rawson/book/6548696

"A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy" by Wing-Tsit Chan is a very good, comprehensive academic text that delves into all schools of Taoism along with Confucianism, Buddhism, and related/other philosophies:

https://www.amazon.com/Source-Book-Chinese-Philosophy/dp/0691019649

I personally love "The I Ching Workbook" by R.L. Wing:

https://www.amazon.com/I-Ching-Workbook-R-L-Wing/dp/038512838X/ref=pd_sim_14_2?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=038512838X&pd_rd_r=W737WYE8N43DRH49W1DG&pd_rd_w=Rg4P7&pd_rd_wg=ECUAh&psc=1&refRID=W737WYE8N43DRH49W1DG

In reviewing the above-linked books (especially Wing-Tsit Chan's tome, which weighs in at a hefty 800+ pages,) it made me think about the Mormon missionaries, who hope to "teach" the people of China, Japan, etc. who have thousands of years of civilization, culture, and highly developed philosophies which differ so radically from Western religions and philosophies. And here the Mormon church sends these wet behind the ears 18 year olds who simply haven't the faintest clue. Maybe instead of having the missionaries read the standard works over and over, they should instead read the very advanced and developed philosophies of the people whom they presume to "teach." Then the missionaries would at least approach these people with some level of respect and understanding.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/24/2017 11:28AM by summer.

I am a nondenominational Christian too. However I am a firm believer in the Scientific Method. I also "home school" on Church (i.e. I don't sit in any pews) and stay very "non" denominational primarily because I believe that each and every verse of the Bible ought to be dealt with complete honesty in its complete historical context. There are many denominations that refuse to be completely honest about every single Bible verse so I keep my boundaries up strong on them. Any denomination that doesn't meet this standard of straightforwardness will never be able to guilt-trip me on anything and if they try then it will be counterproductive for them. Thus I am very "non" denominational and its safe to presume I will probably remain that way the rest of my life.

When agnostics, atheists, and others not claiming to be Christian will try to argue with me then here is what I say:

"Hush ;) I live in the Bible Belt and don't want to offend anyone. I said I'm a Christian and that's my classification. But you are free to believe as you wish and I will not be judgmental. Life is too short to argue over religion. So let's focus on other subjects for the rest of this life such as science. I will make no time for arguments over religion in this life so they are saved for the next life."

I guess you could call me a "New Order Christian" ;)

Thanks for sharing your story. It is very encouraging to hear others courageously speak the truth while simultaneously exposing the lies that mascaraed as truth (tscc). You retain what was good about the church and discard the rest and move on with your life. There is a purpose to our lives and truth to be discovered whatever we discover it to be and no counterfeit for the truth (lie) no matter how appealing will suffice.

My experience with 'non-denominational' christians unfortunately has been as negative if not more negative than with Mormons. The neighbors of ours who shot their own puppy for no good reason (had another neighbor said they would take the puppy if it didn't work out and we would have as well, but they 'forgot' about those offers) and have a bunch of trigger happy kids going around boasting of killing hundreds of endangered toads (because they think they are 'demonic') and snakes.

I am not against people being Christian (esp. truly so following the pacifist teachings of Christ, but those are hard to come by), but there are some churches that are pretty much harmless (i.e. Unitarian, some Episcopalian, maybe some Methodist or Lutherians) but the non-denominational (not sure why it's called that exactly, sounds like they aren't affiliated with any one organization but it is an organization and many churches throughout the country are linked together by that one organization as far as I can tell) variety seem to be a bit fanatical and have some dangerous ideas about the world and all of the creatures in it being intended for man's use and there are some preachers in that group that have youtube videos up that seem to be very fanatical and talk a lot about the last days, revelations, all the fear talk.

So I have to agree with Dave the Atheist here, that it does sound like an 'out of the frying pan into the fire'.. which I think unfortunately tends to happen to many of us who leave Mormonism. When I first did I certainly got myself into the fire a few times in my search to figure out how I was going to approach my own spirituality. When you've been indoctrinated in the cult as many of us have for as long as we have it can really take time and a lot of errors to figure things out. We tend to be very naive and easily lead. I was prime prey when I left both to abusive men and to abusive religions and ideologies.

I hardly think it's fair to assume when a declared atheist makes a point about a particular religion that it means they automatically think that nobody should be involved in religion or be Christian. Just because some of us has chosen not to be those things or believe that way it doesn't mean we don't respect those who choose to do that but we may be able to see that some of these other religions out there are no better than Mormonism. After all it's not like Mormonism is the only dangerous controlling religious group out there.

I think the non-denominational churches can be a crap-shoot. Some are quite good, some are horrible and controlling. Let the buyer beware!

Op Stated: I was running through a park near campus, and started crying (sad tears...), because I felt very depressed, lonely, and philosophically lost. I prayed to the air, stating that I wanted to know if god(s) existed and if she/he/it/they cared about me at all. I was struck with the strange urge to run across the field into the forest. This was the middle of winter, with two feet of snow on the ground, so I did not like the thought of abandoning the plowed trail and freezing my running shoes in the slush. Still, I felt compelled to run into the forest, so I left the trail and lolloped awkwardly through the snow. Once in the forest, something on the nearest tree immediately caught my eye. It was a heart. Someone had carved a heart into the tree that I was staring at. You can interpret this however you want, but I took it as a direct answer to my question.
__________________________________________________________

Sorry I did not read your 'story' before I responded at first. I now have other comments.

I have experienced many 'coincidences' such as you have experienced. This type of 'coincidence' started me on my journey to find the 'truth' I was interested in.

I agree you have had what I call a 'spiritual experience'. However, please notice what you asked, you was prompted to do something strange and complied, and what the answer was!

You asked if there was a 'God' and whether that 'God' loved you. You got the answers that 'yes' there is a 'God' and 'God cares about you'. That is 'accurate' and totally in alignment with my 'spiritual experiences'.

Now did you do the same thing before joining a 'man made religion' and worshipping a 'man made god"???

Sorry, to be so blunt but seriously, if you found out you could get answers to your questions why did you 'study, talk, attend, etc.' and not take the same approach to 'pray, ask in seriousness, meditate, etc.' and get another 'divine answer'?????????

This is not 'rocket science' but does require being 'open to promptings' and have a desire to ask something and be patient enough to 'wait' for the answer!

(Same post from another thread on same general topic.)

It appears that human beings have an innate desire to make an emotional attachment to something outside themselves.
Call it: mysticism, paranormal, spirits, after life, visions, ethereal, spiritual, deity/s, supernatural, etc. somewhere in every culture there is a system of belief that unites them.
It's not about what is true or false, it's about belief by faith. That is an important distinction.

There are thousands of belief systems that create a World View that makes sense to different people.

Belief systems are predominantly determined by the geography and time period of your birth. What you are born into often remains for a lifetime.

In this world we live in, there is a larger connection to more peoples and their ideas and beliefs and people can more easily make changes in their belief systems, or discard them as they choose.

It's important, in my view, to give everyone the same respect and honor we want for ourselves when we live by a World View that is constructed by our own choice of belief system.

There is no right or wrong one on some kind of sliding scale, for instance. It's about personal choice and our right to change our minds if and when we want to, also.

We can chose a religion, a deity, a savior, or none and change our mind at anytime. It's all part of being a human being and figuring out what makes sense to us as we follow our life path.

I like the idea of letting go of any need to tell someone what kind of belief system and World View is acceptable or not acceptable.
It's all OK. It's a personal choice and the more we take that perspective, the more we are compatible and can communicate and understand one another.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/24/2017 03:41PM by SusieQ#1.

"There is no right or wrong one on some kind of sliding scale, for instance. It's about personal choice and our right to change our minds if and when we want to, also."
____________________________________________________

First, it was 'op' that told us 'how' she 'found truth'.

However, when she decides on Jebus and a church ---- I saw no such process to find the 'truth'.

As far as your quote that is 'ridiculous' in so many areas ----- especially God!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/24/2017 03:52PM by spiritist.

What we are often confused about is: what is truth and what kind is it? Scientific truth, absolute truth, objective truth, personal truth, and on and on.

Religious belief systems are, in my view, objective truth. It's not about factual evidence, but rather beliefs by faith that ring "true" to the person. It's also a kind of: "personal truth" as it's most often emotionally driven. They require a base belief that metaphysical and visionary claims are often of greater importance than some factual claim.

Religious claims are not about factual truth. They are about mystical, metaphysical, visional claims, generally. The Bible stories, for instance, are not about factual truth, even though there some still standing places and some historical figures listed.

There seems to be a kind of drive for many to find some absolute truth in some belief system.

The OP, in my view, is sharing her "personal truth" that works for her in how she created her World View so it makes sense.

I agree, Susie. A studio art professor of mine once told a story to illustrate a point. He said that he once saw a picture drawn by a child of a baseball pitcher throwing a ball. The pitcher had thrown the ball so hard that his arm detached and was traveling with the ball. The professor's point being -- sometimes fiction can convey a point better than reality.

That's how I view the Christian narrative -- as a meaningful story that conveys a deeper truth.

any one who is really an intellectual won't be a MORmON for very long ....unless they have big plans to steal from the MORmON flock by remaining proximate to it.

they will also see through the hoax of Christianity in pretty short order.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2J8O3vw9dk

Intellectual MORmON is an oxyMORmONIC term.

Intellectual Christian is an oxymoronic term.