When you see all the religious mechanisms used to generate belief in gods and supernatural beliefs, e.g. appeal to scripture as revelation, prayer to affirm faith as justified, the arguments for God (e.g. the design argument), apologetics, etc., all being used when you were Mormon to defend LDS beliefs and then you later learn Mormonism is not true and based on a fraud; it makes you VERY skeptical since the faith mechanism that led you assume Mormonism is true, are the same methods used in all other religions.

Yet my skepticism is tempered by science itself! You see, I have been reading a lot of books written by atheist scholars and scientists, who at the end of the day argue that we are pretty much designed by Evolution to be spiritual and theistic. They write this while saying they are hard core atheists, but they can’t ignore the data.

I find it interesting that if you really dig deep into the writings of Friedrich Nietzsche, and scholarly books on his life and philosophy, you’ll find that even though he is known as the dude who said “God is dead …”, when you actually read his writings and his Thus Spake Zarathustra in context, you find that there is a strong unconscious urge in him to not just remove dogmatic Augustinian Pauline religiosity, but there is a strong attempt to introduce a new Dionysian/Spinozian type of God-concept and mythos to help humanity affirm Life. My point is that we (or most of us) have a “spiritual brain” so to speak.

Even as skeptical as I am and non-theist leaning, I still find the transcendental temptation (as Paul Kurtz called it) popping up constantly as my right-brain battles with my left-brain from time to time. Even countries like Sweden and Norway still have a lot of spirituality type stuff going on. After studying the brain science of belief and spirituality, I now understand why I long for the transcendent even with my active frontal lobe.

Mormonism is a unique religion in that it is a recent historical religion that developed in a way that today is very easy to disprove once you choose to go digging. But a lot of the claims of Christianity for example are not as easy to dismantle as Mormonism. I mean there's no handwritten diary entry of Paul’s “First Vision” for example. We have all this empirical evidence against Mormonism which makes it easy to realize it's a fraud. We have court documents showing Smith was a fraud! We know very little by comparison about the NT persons and characters that is even remotely similar. That’s not to say that scholars like Bart Ehrman have not done a good job making me skeptical of the claims of biblical Fundamentalists.

My point is that unlike other churches, I think Mormonism, more than any other church is an “atheist factory.” I have heard from more than one source, that Mormonism produces a lot of nontheists (atheists and agnostics). I think Mormonism sets you up to be nontheist when you leave. First, because of the reasons I gave above. And second, the LDS church does a good job pointing out the dirty laundry in other churches, like the problems with the Protestant Reformers and their irrational and harmful ideas in many cases.

Third, Smith pretty much copied the exact same religious mentality and method of the preachers of his day, down to the same King James English, when producing the Book of Mormon. So when you get those religious "feelings" as a Mormon while reading the BoM that feels the same to you as when you read the New Testament, and then later see that the BoM is a fraud; it makes you realize that scripture-making to invoke a reaction is a skill that anyone can do. So is the same skill being used in the Bible? You then learn about other gospels and epistles that did not make it into the New Testament, and you start to think and ponder that, and why the New Testament documents that are in there now are any more "divine" and "inspired" than the BoM or Gospel of Thomas for example.

Another reason for the strong growth of non-theism in the post-Mormon community, is because I think Mormonism is split brained in way, in that it contains Smith’s own evolution of belief from Evangelical Protestant (BoM, 1830) to later becoming more of a Religious Humanism (Book of Abraham, King Follet Discourse in the 1840s, etc).

By the 1840s, Smith is defending anti-Monotheism and rejects belief in a Supreme Being while offering a religious humanism wherein Matter is eternal, and man’s soul is uncreated and basically divine; while the God of his earth was once a man; that is by definition a non-theist philosophy of sorts, because if by theism you mean:

Supreme Being > Matter > Earth > Soul of Man > Man/flesh, in that order from that which is Eternal to created ...

Then Mormonism instead has it:

Matter + Soul of Man ("Intelligences") > Earth > Man/flesh (and THEN Gods as exalted men), in that order from that which is Eternal to created. So that there is no Supreme Being. It rejects classic theism.

Thus for me at least, it was not a far step to go from belief in many Gods that evolved, and matter and my soul is eternal, and I am not depraved and punished for Adam's transgression; to then asking, why a deity and a blood sacrifice at all? I think the strong humanist-like bent of later 1840s Mormonism allows post-Mormons to break away from scriptural-theism easier than Protestants and Catholics.

So what now?

What I have tried to do is balance both my left-brain and my right-brain (I use these terms as metaphors knowing the brain is more complex than that), and have certain mythological beliefs I entertain in a Joseph Campbell kind of way, while maintaining my rationality and science-based understanding of the Cosmos. For example, some days I might entertain the God of say Wayne Dyer, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTCRWdYGE5A
I find Dyer’s concept of God harmless and inspiring as a mythical idea, when I allow myself to entertain the idea, if only temporarily, without being overly skeptical and deconstructing which is my default.

Other days I entertain Eckhart Tolle’s "God" concept as not even a mind concept but nondualistic “Being,” other days I am more Einsteinian in my concept of God as the Cosmos.

Basically, I don't try to “know” something as absolutely true like I did when I was Mormon. Instead, I like the philosophy of possibilianism (see https://www.possibilian.com/). Reading Eagleman’s book Sum: 42 Tales of the Afterlives, opened my eyes to wondering beyond the theist vs. atheist divide. That does not mean I don't ignore probabilities, but I now allow myself to hold different metaphysical and naturalistic views in the possibility space of my mind. So that some days I'm a hardcore materialist/physicalist, and other days I enjoy listening to non-theists describe a God as a Force or ineffable Presence, like John Shelby Spong or Wayne Dyer or whoever; and enjoy the sensations I get from my "spiritual brain" when I entertain a Cosmos infused with meaning and divinity. While other days my "rational brain" rules and I enjoy being a nontheistic Nietzschean “free spirit” and creating my own meaning in life (as also Logotherapy emphasizes).

In short, Mormonism demanded that I have certain knowledge in a clear and concise system of thought, that I was told I *had to know* for sure was absolutely true and was encouraged to repeat my pretend certainty every day or week bearing testimony to it. Today I say, "F*ck that!" I change my mind on everything all the time, I mean I recently moved a few notched one way on the political spectrum, so why should my thoughts on metaphysics be any different.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/06/2019 12:16AM by wonderfull.

Well said. Thoughful. Thank you

You're very welcome :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/06/2019 12:42AM by wonderfull.

WTF is a "hard core Atheist"? Are you a hard core nonsense blatherer ?

Most atheists were never Mormon and probably know very little about Mormonism. So, as an "atheist factory" Mormonism is negligible compared to other religions.

Most of the great thinkers you quote were not influenced by Mormonism.

I will say that Mormonism being such a young movement makes it easier to see the process of how religions arise. The mystery is why people do not use the same detective skills for evaluating claims from their own sacred cows if they rejected Mormonism. I believe they exempt their chosen religion for identity and personal reasons mostly.

Most of the atheists in American Atheists came from Christian and other environments. In countries where atheism is dominant, it had nothing to do with Mormonism.

Atheism mainly is a result of verification of claims and lack of evidence resulting in not harboring a belief. Theism requires faith since the claims cannot be verified externally.

All this has nothing to do with spirituality for most atheists. How people express awe of the universe and come to terms with having no answers is an individual quest for most atheists since they do not accept McReligion's answers. The standards for what they accept as fact are fluid as more evidence becomes available.

Yes. And, Yes.

So obvious that those that cling to religion do "exempt their chosen religion for identity and personal reasons mostly." I would probably drop the "mostly." :)

Atheists are the ones that don't exempt anything.

If one insists on evidence and fact as they maneuver, then exemption of that which one "wants to be true" without fact just fizzleS as a guiding force in life.

I imagine many atheists are atheist because they were raised without religion. I know a number of non believers. Some are critical thinkers and some are anything but. Some are angry with religion and/or God because of past experiences, some were raised that way and some know very little about religion beyond stereotypes. Yes, some are critical thinkers, but not all and religious people can be critical thinkers too.

Wonderfull,

Interesting essay. I especially enjoyed the link to Possibilianism which I had not heard of and seems charming.

For myself I came into TSSC without any belief in God or anything like that—forces in the universe or whatever. My time as a convert I tried to believe mostly because the people seemed like a nice group, I was tired of being a loner all my life, wanted to fit in, believe what they believed.

As time went on many of the people were cruel, SS classes didn’t make sense and I saw as a convert and single lady I could never be accepted or belong in this group.

So I left disillusioned with the religion, the group and not believing any more or less than I did coming in.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/06/2019 11:41AM by mel.

Hey Dave the Atheist,

I do blather a lot don't I ;) ... Apparently I offended you with my sentence:

" I have been reading a lot of books written by atheist scholars and scientists, who at the end of the day argue that we are pretty much designed by Evolution to be spiritual and theistic. They write this while saying they are hard core atheists, but they can’t ignore the data."

Why were you offended by that?

I could just have easily said "hard core deists..." to the same effect. I could have said "They write this while saying they are hard core deists." Which would simply mean they are not wishy washy deists, but serious deists who are strongly convinced of their deism.

Is not atheism a spectrum of positions from weak atheism to strong atheism?

More to the point, I was actually quoting the atheists authors *themselves* who used "hard core atheist" to emphasize how "reluctant" they are of the data!

For example, listen to Robert Sapolsky at the 2:00 to 2:10 minute mark here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GswWJuUv0qU

Note that Sapolsky uses the phase, as an "utter and complete atheist" which could have just as easily been said as, "as a hard core atheist..." to the same effect.


Keep in mind that Clark Adams, a Freethought leader and atheist activist referred to himself as a "a pretty hard core atheist."

Dawkins called for militant atheism here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxGMqKCcN6A ... clearly there is a spectrum of atheism, right? Now, compare Dawkins to Neil deGrasse Tyson who doesn't even choose to be called an atheist (even though he is a nontheist): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2itlUlD10M

My point is there is a spectrum of atheism and my phrasing was quoting the authors themselves who realize this!

Keep in mind as well that in the post I also wrote the sentence, "I'm a hardcore materialist/physicalist, ..." You see how I am using the phrase "hard core"?

Can you at least see that my intentions were not to offend?

But if you *really* think it is offensive I will edit it. But if I said "there are your average Mormons and then your hard core Mormons who go to church every Sunday," would that be offensive to you?

Just trying to understand your thinking.

I understand that atheists as a minority are sensitive because of all the prejudice out there. I get that, trust me! I said I was an nontheist in my post! But I am just not sure your comment was warranted. But as an ethical humanist I am willing to think on this and change my communication if my words really are objectively offensive and you can argue your position to me so that I may better understand you.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 04/06/2019 02:29PM by wonderfull.

Mel,

The pull of religion is very powerful, it is the main source of social community for most people in most of America, not so much so in other countries though like Sweden and Norway for example.

dagny,

Your comment reminded me of Zuckerman's Aweism, see:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/welcome-to-aweism-the-nonreligious-impulse-you-cant-explain/2015/01/02/00a015ee-92ab-11e4-a66f-0ca5037a597d_story.html?utm_term=.c8d41111cdd1

Do you mean movements like Ásatrúarfélagið? I think you don't really understand what's going on in Scandinavia.

I think the proper word is "apatheistic."

I don't know, and I don't care.

catnip Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think the proper word is "apatheistic."
>
> I don't know, and I don't care.

Catnip,

I believe I will join you in that!!!

Wonderfull,

I like the blather. Please continue on. I find it intellectually stimulating.

Dave, please don’t attack this poster. :) Some of us enjoy his thinking. Board guidelines, remember, no personal attacks. I hope your day improves and that you continue to enjoy the posts here and to contribute thoughtful answers of your own!

-Mel

Hedning,

Are you referring to the sentence where I wrote, "Even countries like Sweden and Norway still have a lot of spirituality type stuff going on ..." If so, I think you read into what I said something I did not say.

Wat do you think"type stuff" means?

No, I was not thinking of the Ásatrúarfélagið ...Who are they?

My comment was off the cuff based on a documentary I watched within the last year. Can't recall the name of it.

You said, "I think you don't really understand what's going on in Scandinavia."
I don't think you really understand what I was saying about Scandinavian.

I think you read into my sentence as me saying "Scandinavia is overrun with supernaturalism and spiritualism", which I never said.

Thanks for the comment, mel

Kind of new to posting here and was wondering if it was just me or if some people are a bit testy for some reason

Hi Wonderfull,

Yes you will need a thick scin to post here! Many, many very smart and nice people though. Some are grouchy sometimes but then might surprise you and be really nice later!

I am not a moderator but there are strict guidelines on this privately run board, supported only by donations from those of us here that believe in it. When you are logged in you can report a personal attack with one click to the moderator. The guidelines are there at the top to read.

I thought about reporting Dave but didn’t, but he and everyone needs to remember the board is about sharing ideas and supporting those wanting or trying to get out, not about personal attacks. Dave posts here a lot and I didn’t recall him being offensive before, so I figured he was just having a bad day and let it go. He is often quite funny and educated.

I have only been on the board a few months and there are many here who will know more than I do, but that’s my 2cents.

Please keep posting when you like, be prepared for the occasional sour note but taken as a whole I think you will like it. :)

If you don't agree with Dave's atheism in every detail, he will respond with a nasty one liner. I am sure I can expect one any minute.. Just be aware. You can choose to report it or ignore it. Also, mel, you need to be aware that there is history between some posters and one post often doesn't tell the whole story.

Welcome to RFM, Wonderful! I have been liking your posts.

You have expressed very well--with appropriate references--what my own beliefs are right now. I'm delighted to find someone who agrees with me. You seem to be a learner, also, and a fellow human who is constantly growing and changing, from one minute to the next. One of the reasons Mormonism could never have worked for me, is that a dynamic, living, changing human being can't be stamped-down into a 2-dimentional entity, and stuffed into a one-size-fits-all envelope, permanently "sealed", and delivered unto God (or most likely Satan.) It is impossible for me to think like a Mormon, or like any religious zealot, for that matter.

Anyway--what you said! You said it much better.

Hemingway wrote, in his final novel, "There is no One Truth--it's all true."

I wonder if you're like me. I will forever seek more Truth and knowledge, but along the way, I won't be upset because I don't know everything. I'm satisfied with ambiguity. In the grand scheme of things, love matters, being a good person matters, family matters--and it does not matter if God wears a cross or has a face or is more than one entity, or is not there at all.

Mel,

I could be wrong but I think Dave just misunderstood what I was saying. And I also can understand where he is coming from. I used to attend a Meetup group with atheists and agnostics and so I know that the atheist community is constantly dealing with prejudice.

I was not offended so much as surprised by his reaction; but it's no big deal, really. I can roll with the punches. As someone who lifts weights and has boxed in the past and whatnot,and growing up with several brothers and lots of fighting, and a middle child, I embrace some conflict as a natural state of life even while prefering peace and synergy. I even enjoy the occasional tussle of words. I just prefer it to make sense and not based on a misunderstanding.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/06/2019 11:16PM by wonderfull.

It is still typical Dave He is famous for that sort of reaction

Exminion,

Yeah I think you got me right, I am a Learner for sure; and from what you wrote we do seem to have a lot in common.

I used to be very binary and Plato-like in my thinking, but after studying neuroscience and then Frederick Nietzsche and the existentialists, Tolle and Zen philosophy, I have become much more flexible and fluid in my world view(s) and I tend to avoid systems or dogmas of any kind. As you put it, I am much more okay with "ambiguity" now than I was before.

I guess I am just rebellious, or a maverick as Joseph Campbell puts it to describe himself. I suspect that many exMormons are that way too. I left my mission midway through voluntarily, over the priesthood-ban; which is a longer story. In my early twenties I was that guy who refused to wear a white shirt to every young single adult activity. I don't follow social norms till this day, for example most of society says I should marry and have kids, but I choose long-term bachelor and no kids. If I change my mind on that then fine, but I refuse to do what society says I MUST do to be normal and fit in.

I like what you said:

"...for me, is that a dynamic, living, changing human being can't be stamped-down into a 2-dimentional entity, and stuffed into a one-size-fits-all envelope, permanently "sealed", and delivered unto God (or most likely Satan.) It is impossible for me to think like a Mormon, or like any religious zealot, for that matter."

Exactly!

I am always saying that religion and philosophy is never a one-size-fits-all kind of thing. I even think that some personality types with a certain kind of upbringing and biochemistry, that for some people, Mormonism can just kind of work for that person. But for me, and I would say most people, it does not really fit.

Mormonism never worked because I'm just too independent and inquisitive, etc.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/06/2019 11:45PM by wonderfull.

To me atheism is just like any other religion or "ism", It is faith based. Atheism is based on faith. Prove that there is no God by way of the scientific method? It can't be done. And yes you can prove a negative, and yes the burden is on the atheist to prove there isn't a God because it is there claim and they must back their own belief.

Personally I didn't have enough faith to be an atheist and I was too positional in stance to be an apathetic agnostic.

I left organized religion. Jesus never left me. I still strongly believe he is the savior of the world and everything he claimed to be. Not another soul on the planet has affected so many people. More has been written, sung about, talked about, art depicted, followed than any other person. Billions upon billions have and still follow him. 2000 years later and over half the entire planet follows him and is waiting for his 2nd coming. Over half the planet awaits his return.

I never regretted leaving Mormonism or all forms of organized religion, and I never regretted not leaving Jesus. I believe he saves and I believe all people can follow him without religion.

Peace to you all.

I also find my beliefs shifting with the wind, since after Mormonism nothing can be assumed what it appears. I think you’re leaving out a very important thing: Folk Magic.

That aspect stymied me for the longest. If Mormonism is clearly bogus, why does the folk magic work? The easy answer, that it doesn’t, is a non-answer. Am I going to trust your opinion or my own lying eyes? The answer is belief. Beliefs are make believe, but no matter. Their physical effects are real. So in a way, Joseph Smith started something special even if by conjuring a belief system through deceit. Unfortunately, any institution founded in deceit is beyond redemption. The religion deserves nothing but contempt. That aside, it’s a great illustration of the power of belief.

christfollower,

You say you left organized religion for Jesus, but I suspect you are still part of organized religion. For example, is your version of Jesus based on Augustine, Calvin, and/or Luther? If you say, "Well, I just read my Bible." Which translation? Why that translation? Who told you that translation is best? What church do you go to? What is the underlying tradition? Methodist? Calvanist? Do you know? I suspect you are part of an organized religion. Have you read Pagan Christianity, see https://www.paganchristianity.org/

The authors of that book linked above show how most of Christianity as is practiced today is pagan, and they consider themselves Christians. Many Mormons refuse to study the history of their religion yet are ready to proselyte. Have you studied the history of your religion before proselyting?

I don't think atheism is faith based. Most atheists I know personally simply lack a belief in god or gods. How is that faith?

How do you define faith? How is Atheism based on faith?

Most atheists do not claim that they can prove that there is no God by way of the scientific method. I think you are attacking a straw man.

Here is how I see the dialogue:

Theist: "There is a particular humanoid god that prefers my religious sect and tradition, my holy book and my translation, that intervenes in the world and is overly focused on what consenting adults do behind closed doors."

Atheist: "Where is the empirical evidence for this specific deity?"

*Honest* Theist: "There is no *empirical* evidence, you just have to have faith."

I interpret faith, based on Hebrews 11:1 to mean: wishing or hoping an idea or concept is true, assuming it to be true as if it were, through feelings and imagination, when there is zero evidence seen or demonstrated. And so faith in your Faith, makes ALL Faiths true by that logic.

There are other ways to criticize atheism if that is your goal. You are not going to convince thinking atheists and agnostics with your reasoning. As it just sounds like a Mormon bearing their testimony to those like me who have thought deeply about this stuff.

I think it is great you find comfort and purpose with your version of Jesus. I really do. I just wish you would not misrepresent atheism.

Your claim that "the burden is on the atheist to prove there isn't a God ..." That makes zero sense to me. That is like saying "the burden is on the a-unicornist to prove there aren't unicorns." Does A-unicornist have the burden of proof to prove there are no unicorns?


I respect your right to believe and personally do not care what you believe as long as it does not affect me. To each his/her own. As the Deist Thomas Jefferson put it, "... it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” But I do think you are misrepresenting most atheists.

Most of what you said is just proselyting IMO, which as a former Mormon missionary, I get that mindset, but it is not very convincing rationally. For example, people have been claiming Jesus is coming back *soon* for over two thousand years! All those people were wrong. Are you the one generation that has it right? Do you think your deity has singled you out?

"Saved" from what? Do you think humans are cursed and depraved, an "enemy to God" like the Book of Mormon teaches? As a humanist I find that not very uplifting.

By the way, there is more than one way to be a Christ-follower. John Shelby Spong for example is a Christ-follower yet does not misrepresent the position of atheists. And according to critical Bible scholars, the historical Jesus was Jewish, i.e. he practiced the Judaism of his day. Food for thought.

I highly recommend these books:

> The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus by Amy-Jill Levine

> The Jewish Gospels by Daniel Boyarin

> Adam, Eve, and the Serpent by Elaine Pagels

> The Jewish Annotated New Testament

All of these scholarly books helped me see more clearly what the historical Jesus was most probably all about, apart from layers of post-Constantine dogma. Hopefully, you support historical scholarship.

Peace to you.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/07/2019 02:31PM by wonderfull.

As far as I can tell, all babies, as in newborns, come into their mortality without a religious perspective. Parents don't wait breathlessly for the child to learn speech and to then announce, "I'm Catholic!"

If I'm correct in this perspective, from whence comes the child's desire to practice a religion? Isn't it a verity, that without being spoonfed a religious perspective, children would grow up to be atheist? This would not be as a result of a choice; it would be their natural order.

Why would they make up a religion when their lives were running fine in its absence? Ignorance being bliss, an' all...

Once you do learn religion (or have it shoved down your tiny, infant throat) the choice to set it aside and just leave a void in its place, is simple. There are no facts that mitigate against such a posture...just feelings. Deists can't prove their case and atheists don't need to.

Humans have the capacity to create a small contained space and to remove everything from that space, thus creating a vacuum, as in there's nothing there. If a deist wants to tell me that ghawd is still in that vacuum, because he's everywhere, I don't need to prove the deist wrong, he has to prove that ghawd is in there.

Do I believe in faith? You betcha! Just not religious faith. And I'm never going to have faith that ghawd is in that vacuum. If you do, fine by me. And for sure I'm never going to pay another human being to tell me what ghawd wants to say and do, etc.

So say I.

Interestingly, there is a professor at Harvard--Robert Coles--who specializes in children's lives. His pedigree is pretty much impeccable: Pulitzer Prize, MacArthur Fellowship, Presidential Medal of Freedom, etc. He's done a number of sort-of-popular books, dozens of academic books, and hundreds of articles about childhood and broader social issues.

What differentiates his approach is that he actually listens to kids. He observes them and talks to them, taking them seriously in a way that is not uncommon now but was when he started his work several decades ago.

Coles found that at age five, children universally believe in God (broadly defined). That is not the same thing as asserting that newborns have a sense of religion, or that five-year-olds' intuition is accurate, but psychologically people go through that stage as they develop.

> That is not the same thing as
> asserting that newborns have a
> sense of religion, or that five-
> year-olds' intuition is accurate,
> but psychologically people go
> through that stage as they develop.
>

The last phrase can be interpreted to mean that five-year-olds are pushed through that stage as outside forces effect them.

I raised two male atheists. There was not the slightest mention to them of ghawd, Jesus, angels or heaven by their parental units, ever. As they went through their routine SoCal schooling, they never evidenced any interest, much less need, for religion. Now as adults they don't 'practice' nor champion atheism, rather they simply eschew religion. There is no 'ghawd' in their lives that they have to pretend is not there. They didn't reject ghawd, they just never knew him. Lucky them!

Children are definitely born without religious dogma, but the bottom line time is that if a propensity for religious belief didn't exist in humans, there would be no religion or it would be much rarer. Of course that propensity isn't equal in all people and there have probably always been atheists.

Hey, I agree!

+1

I don't mean to suggest that children are pushed into, or out of, belief in God (broadly defined). I am merely stating that observation of kids at that age indicates that at that age they generally believe in a supernatural, nurturing presence. That snapshot observation has no bearing on whether God exists, whether belief in God is beneficial, whether it is "natural" for people at other ages, etc.

The great thing about Coles was that he asked (in ways that were designed not to plant ideas; I believe he is an atheist) questions that others did not. And he took the answers seriously.

This is neither here nor there, but did you ever explore whether your children at age five had a belief in the supernatural? I am pretty confident that I never asked a non-value-laden question of that sort to my own kids. I am also reasonably confident I was incapable of doing that since it would have required overcoming my own inclinations in a way that I never thought necessary in the context.

It would be tough to find 5 year old kids who have not had exposure to adults or other kids talking about heaven, where dead grandpa goes, being sent from God, watched by God, etc.

I wonder how he was able to find a control group of kids who have never heard anything about a god who somehow knew how to define one?

It's not like anyone could define what Xp#d@rf is unless someone tells them some version of what it is.

I always loved the mystery of not knowing. The church to me was like watching a movie knowing how it all ends. That's boring as hell and the church is boring as hell.

Nobody has all the answers. We are just reading and listening to other's opinions and for awhile I had to pretend to be a believer to make life living with my TBM parents easier.

Over the years more and more of my so called TBM relatives have left the church. One actually lost over a 100 pounds and got her depression under control by leaving. The church was stressing her out that bad.

TSCC leaves intelligent people begging for answers it does not have.

It creates a void it cannot fill.

There was such a vacuum in the center of my being as a Mormon that I knew something was seriously wrong with that belief system.

The stress that comes with living that kind of a lie is overwhelming, especially when you realize that others have accepted the lie and resigned themselves to it without questioning why. That was when I knew it was a bleeping cult.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/07/2019 06:37PM by Amyjo.

A perplexing part of the totality of what you write here is the difficulty one can have putting the pieces together.

This sentence of yours:

"There was such a vacuum in the center of my being as a Mormon that I knew something was seriously wrong with that belief system."

But your exit stories, both of them, were based on gross mistreatment at the hands of your bishop, who in the second episode was the former bishop.

The bishop and his wife interfered in your daughter's life, behind your back, and then the wife practically attacked you in your own home. You left the church.

Then you returned to mormonism, only to again be the victim of that same couples' gross interference with your daughter. You left the church for good.

It seems you were okay being a mormon, but then this couple 'ruined' it for you, both times.

So where was the vacuum in the center of your being all that time?