Although I've left the Mormon church, I do still believe in God, and I'm actively trying to find a church that more accurately reflects my beliefs and values. Currently I'm investigating the Eastern Orthodox church.

Does/did anyone else get a sort of PTSD when they went into other churches? I haven't been to a Mormon church since March, but I still feel unsettled in religious settings. In Mormonism, I never felt like I could look at anyone who was talking (out of respect maybe?), and I just tried to get in and out. I also never really felt like I was wanted at all, or part of the community. Going to other churches, that feeling is still there, and I get panic attacks if I can't immediately leave. I can't even walk into the building unless I'm following someone else; it's the only way I feel a little safer. The idea of going at all makes me anxious, but I really do want to go. The idea of talking to people makes me really nervous. I am shy, but not like this. I feel really stuck, like I can't move on from Mormonism and find something that would really make me feel fulfilled.

If anyone else has ever experienced this, do you have any advice on how to cope with the "trauma" (word used lightly) of the Mormon church so you could give another church a chance? Also, how did you go about learning all new doctrine? I spent a lot of time learning everything there is to know about Mormonism, so the fact that I'm kind of going in blind doesn't make me feel any more comfortable in other churches.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/01/2019 12:46AM by JadeDuck.

Please don't tell me religion is a scam or anything like that! I respect that position but religion is important to my life. Thanks!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/01/2019 12:45AM by JadeDuck.

Happy Halloween Opie. It sounds like you are newly out, so congrats for that. You will find a home you are comfortable in. Or you might decide your path is only unique to you. Either way your path is your own. Embrase the journey.

Embrace. I am embarraced by my spelling...

The usual advice on this board is to take a year or two to decompress before you look for a new church (if that is what you wish to do.)

I would look into a variety of churches. You would be surprised how different they can be. Perhaps one of them will have a warmer feel to you. I often recommend the Episcopal church, the ELCA Lutherans, the Presbyterians (PCUSA) and the Methodist church (UMC.) There are many others, and independent churches as well. Just make sure that you avoid the high-control groups.

If you find one that interests you, plan on attending for a long period of time before you think of joining. If you are interested in joining, talk to the priest or minister about religious education classes.

Before church-hunting, do a bit of religious research. For starters, I suggest that you understand how LDS is a corruption of Biblical Christianity.

My recommendation is to get a good study Bible in non-King James and start a modest, systematic Bible study. Non-KJV, so that the "thees" and "thous" don't trigger LDS-associated misunderstandings and emotions. Then start with key sections that are foundational to the Christian spiritual core:

Jesus' Sermon on the Mount: Matthew 5,6,7
the Prologue to John: John 1:1-18 ("In the Beginning was the Word..."
Jesus conversation with Nicodemus: (John 3:1-21)
The Exodus: Exodus 1-20
The Gospel of Luke, because it is the most thorough, and includes Jesus' teachings, miracles, and involvement with people outside the Jewish community: lepers, Samaritans, etc. Luke himself was a gentile.

I like the ESV Study Bible: modern translation, excellent charts, illustrations, and explanatory notes. You'll be asking, "Where did the Mormons come up with all those crazy ideas?"

Hi,

Yes, I experienced anxiety attacks when first checking out other churches. I found Eastern Orthodox to be a beautifully conducted ritual but I also felt the most keenly like an outsider when I was checking out that sect. They have a pretty deep culture. I felt like very much like I was Christina Ricci in the movie Penelope, where she is a sweet girl...with a pig nose.

I resorted to reading about a sect, its history, main teachings, key figures, facilities and programs online for a long period of time until I just felt overwhelmingly curious about it and just had to try going in person. I found the delayed gratification kind of offset my nervous outsiderness. Start with a softer sect than Eastern Orthodox, maybe? Like UU, (Unitarian Universalist). Very chill and almost like a religious seminar. Episcopal and ELCA Lutherans do not question you about credentials if you want to participate in Communion. Methodists are laid back, too.

You don't have to use the word trauma lightly here, btw. TCOJCOLDS can be a very traumatic experience. The longer it went on, very likely the deeper the injury. And I do mean injury. PTSD is not just limited to the battlefield veteran or the victim of a violent crime. Longer term, even mild but consistent manipulation and abuse can cause changes to the brain, nervous system, have effects of one's mood, and cause surprising discomfort that seems to come out of nowhere.
I know all this because I suffer from the aftereffects of a crappy childhood and a stint inside the so-called Church. If you're experiencing anxiety episodes while trying to explore other religious venues, I think it may mean that your experience with Mormonism may have left you with some lingering trauma.

Like all the volumes I write, this is just the opinion of myself based on experiences I've had. I've read a lot and paid for a lot of expert time. I have to say the best and most quickly effective treatment for my trauma and anxiety was EMDR sessions with a trained therapist licensed to work with people like me. It may be very helpful for you as you transition to your new way of looking at the world to go through your mental junk drawer with a trained professional. It worked for me.

Best of luck to you, please keep us posted.

EDIT: I forgot to add that when reading books and different scriptures and checking out places online, be sure to check out the critics of each faith or denomination, too. I'd been invited to a "meditation session" for a certain Tibetan Buddhist sect and I googled "so-and-so criticism"...found out these particular people were a splinter sect denounced by pretty much everyone including the Dalai Lama because their practices were questionable, more like new age trends with a little Buddhism in it, and the leader liked to cultivate inappropriate relationships with his followers. I didn't show up for that session. No legit faith group will expect you to pay, or to join up to hear their whole theology. Sacred should not be secret or for sale.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/01/2019 02:58AM by ptbarnum.

The thing about mormonism is that it's very "family oriented" so if you didn't feel part of the community it's probably because it's so cliquish. Ward members are often related, they are very tribal. Other christian churches maybe more open to diverse people. Catholics are very open, But I don't know about Orthodox, the only orthodox people I've known were Greeks. And that's a whole other culture, and tradition. I don't know how open the Greeks are to new people.

But I agree with the other posters above, study about that church and it's doctrines before committing. Not all cultures are equal (And the cultures produce the people). Especially look at the prosperity of the tradition. Orthodox would be at the bottom of the European list because Greece can't get their economic act together. They are always at war and are not diligent at going to work everyday. I'd say look to the Nordic countries where the prosperity is, What do the Danes and Scandinavians do? That would be Lutheranism, the British are closely connected to Anglican and Episcopal. The Italian, Mexican and Irish Catholics are second rate as well.

Follow Summers suggestions above.

macaRomney Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Especially look at
> the prosperity of the tradition. Orthodox would be
> at the bottom of the European list because Greece
> can't get their economic act together.

How does Jesus fare according to that standard? He and his followers were impoverished people who "couldn't get their economic act together" or even control their own country.


-----------------
> I'd say look to the Nordic
> countries where the prosperity is, What do the
> Danes and Scandinavians do?

The Nordic countries are atheistic. Their "religion" is no religion.


--------------------
> That would be
> Lutheranism, the British are closely connected to
> Anglican and Episcopal. The Italian, Mexican and
> Irish Catholics are second rate as well.

Those "second rate" countries are doing better than Jesus's people and even the Christians when they were in charge of their own economics and politics. It was only when the Romans, and then the pagan Germans, conquered Christianity that it became powerful.


-------------------
Congratulations on having proven that paganism and atheism are superior to Christianity.

MacaRomney worships money. Typical Mormon.

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

I have no problem playing golf alone.

I have a couple of golf buddies to whom the idea is almost noxious! They seem to be sincere in how repellant the notion is to be on a golf course alone, without friends to chatter with and without betting.

See where I'm going with this...?

I love to golf alone but my ball keeps hitting the windmill blades.

The boss will be pissed if he sees you on Rocinante, Sancho.

Watch it, Banquo. I've had other men killed for less.

Dave, you should've seen some of the stuff I investigated when I was first exmo. Talk about into the fire. I was very Agent Muldur. The Truth just HAD to be out there. I chanted "Nam Myoho Renge Kyo". I begged heaven for signs. I must've read 1000 books. I attended a Wiccan midsummer and consulted tarot cards. I faced Mecca while wearing a hijab.

I think it was part of my recovery process. I eventually found the truth. It's everywhere, you just have to get yourself into the objective mode to see it. In the meantime I did learn a lot and was surprisingly resiliant to new indoctrination.

That was the real reason I didn't feel like I belonged. I just didn't believe in Sky Daddy anymore, and those circuits were so burned out I couldn't reconnect them even when I wanted to. I could see the human motivations behind the organization's efforts even when I didn't want to see them. The Great and Powerful Oz had been seen and I couldn't unsee.

All the new investigation led to was back to myself and the obvious answer. But plenty of other people find a new and meaningful mythos that makes life richer and I can't criticize that. I'm way more worried about OP's anxiety than anything else.

First, get to know yourself and who you are with nothing like family, friends or religion telling you who or what to be.

It is an old--but important--cliche-- this "finding yourself" thing. Read a lot. Try new things. Explore everything even if eventually you explore a religion too. Fill your mind and heart with new stuff. It's a DIY project and no one, not even a religion can do that for you.

After leaving Mormonism I checked out a lot of religions and even practiced Buddhism for a while. My conclusion was that when I stood back, they really all were the same cake, just different icing. Perhaps that is why you are not feeling good going to new ones? Deep down you already know.

If you go to church again, make sure it is a church and not a crutch. There is a reason those words are interchangeable.

I think one of the best points was to take a vacation. Give yourself time to rest, think through things. I was able to think through my beliefs a lot when I would walk.

I didn't choose to go to another religion. Like my nephew said to me, "We've served our sentence." I have beliefs, but they are unique only to me. Even as a mormon I felt like my beliefs were unique only to me. Being a mormon as an introvert was very difficult for me. That might be part of what you are dealing with. Do you have any anxiety? Social anxiety!!! Being in groups. I went to church because it was something I was supposed to do. I went to worship. I didn't go to socialize. I didn't like the cliquishness of mormonism and, being raised in it, I knew nothing else. I drive by churches and think, "Why would anyone go there?"

You can believe and not attend any congregation. You don't have to have a religion to believe in God, in the Bible, etc. Go out in nature and worship. Be by yourself and not in a place that causes you anxiety.

Before looking for another 'religion' you need to decide what you
'believe/think you believe in first'.

Why go to a religion that you don't believe in and 'try' to make it work.

I would suggest you get a list of key doctrines and id which you believe in, not sure but could believe in, and those you do not believe in. (God, spirit, baptism, tithes, reincarnation or resurection, heaven, hell, angels, demons, etc. etc.)

After listing your beliefs and non-beliefs it will be much easier to find a 'religion' or 'no religion' that works best!

Good luck!

IMO, you have to realize first, that the mormon church isn't a "church"; it is a cult/business. People in it are dependent on each other for friendship, but it's not real friendship. Allow yourself some time to come to terms with this and then, if you still feel that you want to be a part of a religion, go ahead and attend some different churches to see how you feel. Remember though, that religions are man-made; they are basically the opinions of their creators. I've been out for about 4 years now and I still don't lean towards any religion, except maybe Judaism.

If you developed any bologna detection skills leaving Mormonism, how are you going to turn them off when you attend other churches? You are going to need to be very good at rationalization and compartmentalization to not hold other religions to the same scrutiny as Mormonism.

With enough shopping around, you will probably find a group of people with similar values and community belonging. As long as you recognize what exactly you need from a religion and not expect factual claims you might find what you need.

Good luck in your quest!

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As long as you recognize what
> exactly you need from a religion and not expect
> factual claims you might find what you need.

This is an important, and accurate, observation.

Be aware of (or learn) your own, very possibly "hidden" to you right now, assumptions about the word "religion." It is easy in normative American culture to assume that "religion" and "Christianity" are synonymous, but they are not.

The word "religion" includes not only the more common NON-Christian religions, but also all religious conceptions around the globe (including Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, the world's extremely different tribal religions, pantheism....plus atheism, as well).

I highly recommend that you read the following two books, which I guarantee will provide you with a solid base for determining what the optimum religious path for YOU might be:

1) STAGES OF FAITH: The Psychology of Human Development and the Quest for Meaning, by James W. Fowler (a standard text in study of religion/religions studies classes, from high school age through graduate levels).

2) THE SPIRITUAL LIFE OF CHILDREN, by Robert Coles (which shows how all humans, regardless of their religious backgrounds, develop their own, individual, spiritualities from birth through adulthood).

Both of these can be purchased (used) at less than five dollars each from www.abebooks.com, and I very strongly recommend that you begin your search with these two books. After you read these two books, you will have a much stronger realization of "where" you are right now, and where you (unbeknownst to yourself) are likely heading.

The word "religion" includes not only the more common NON-Christian religions, but also all religious conceptions around the globe (including Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, the world's extremely different tribal religions, pantheism....plus atheism, as well).

COMMENT: In the OP "religions" referred to alternative *institutional* religions. To suggest that "religion" encompasses all metaphysical and philosophical positions and worldviews, including "atheism," is a stretch to say the least. Although there may be such broad definitions in some contexts, that is certainly not the context of the OP, or of the Board generally.
__________________________________________

I highly recommend that you read the following two books, which I guarantee will provide you with a solid base for determining what the optimum religious path for YOU might be:

1) STAGES OF FAITH: The Psychology of Human Development and the Quest for Meaning, by James W. Fowler (a standard text in study of religion/religions studies classes, from high school age through graduate levels).

2) THE SPIRITUAL LIFE OF CHILDREN, by Robert Coles (which shows how all humans, regardless of their religious backgrounds, develop their own, individual, spiritualities from birth through adulthood).

COMMENT: Rather than take these recommendations solely upon your own (religious) authority, why don't you summarize the points in each that you believe are particularly enlightening. Or at least tell us why "your recommendation" out of millions of books in theology should be taken unquestionably at face value. My guess is that there are many more people who would "highly" recommend any number of books containing Mormon or Christian apologetics that will "make everything clear."
____________________________________

After you read these two books, you will have a much stronger realization of "where" you are right now, and where you (unbeknownst to yourself) are likely heading.

COMMENT: I thought you said no proselytizing! This is like a Mormon recommending a book by Hugh Nibley or Truman Madsen. Again, make the point! Tell us what these authors have to say that will enlighten us about religion. Make us "want" to read these books. As it stands, I for one have no confidence that either the Methodist theologian, or the psychiatrist/ psychologist -- Harvard or not -- has anything to say about religion that I have not already heard. If a book is worth "highly" recommending, it is worth your effort to provide a summary, and perhaps a quote or two.

Stepping in for Tevai, I've recommended the Coles book several times on RfM. I'm not, however, as sure as she that it teaches that people's spiritual evolution continues through adulthood.

Coles's approach was to find out what kids are thinking and examine it in that context. In Spiritual Life he demonstrates that virtually every five-year-old believes in God or a religious supernatural. It is fascinating work and well worth reading although it does not make, or attempt to make, the argument that the kids are correct in their beliefs or that people continue indefinitely along the same path.

One could conclude, without doing too much damage to Coles, that God is a stage through which all people progress and that a continued belief in the numinous represents arrested development. He does not say that, and he might well disagree with it, but the point of his book is more narrow: that children are religious and that there are commonalities in their beliefs irrespective of culture.

Along with Moral Life of Children and other Coles books, it is great research on a topic that most psychologists shy away from because they haven't come up with a great methodology. Coles takes kids seriously--and they end up explaining a lot.

Thank you, LW. That is exactly what I would expect with a book recommendation! I will research more about Coles' ideas and no doubt read at least one of his books.
_____________________________________________

Coles's approach was to find out what kids are thinking and examine it in that context. In Spiritual Life he demonstrates that virtually every five-year-old believes in God or a religious supernatural.

COMMENT: Well, there is an obvious built-in skepticism that jumps out at me here. First, five-year-olds have already had a heck of a lot of cultural influence making it questionable whether this could be something "innate," if that is where he is going with this. Hopefully he is not suggesting this is an evolutionary adaptation of some sort! Second, children may indeed have rich imaginations, including making up such things as "imaginary friends" and make-believe worlds that facilitate play. So, that may be a part of the psychology of children. But, to assign a "religious" component to this imagination; much less a "belief in God" or the supernatural, in a religious context, strikes me as a huge leap; and a very heavy evidentiary challenge.
______________________________________________

It is fascinating work and well worth reading although it does not make, or attempt to make, the argument that the kids are correct in their beliefs or that people continue indefinitely along the same path.

COMMENT: Whew! Now *that* claim would be a deal breaker. But, does he think that this innate religious orientation is biological; i.e. the product of evolution, or just a propensity that follows from imagination generally? Does this biological propensity become dormant after cultural conditioning, or does it sit there in our genome waiting to be revived? (A God gene?) If it is just psychological, what is its source if not culture?
________________________________________

One could conclude, without doing too much damage to Coles, that God is a stage through which all people progress and that a continued belief in the numinous represents arrested development. He does not say that, and he might well disagree with it, but the point of his book is more narrow: that children are religious and that there are commonalities in their beliefs irrespective of culture.

COMMENT: But what is the source of this religious tendency? That seems to me to be the key. Is it fundamentally just psychology, or does it encompass hard-wired biology? And upon what value judgment does he conclude that a continuation of such believes is "arrested development." Maybe it is just the opposite; i.e. culture smothering our innate belief in religious truth.
_________________________________________

Along with Moral Life of Children and other Coles books, it is great research on a topic that most psychologists shy away from because they haven't come up with a great methodology. Coles takes kids seriously--and they end up explaining a lot.

COMMENT: Well, methodology is my concern too. Psychological studies are questionable enough when they encompass adults. And that would be my first look to see what validity there might be in his conclusions.

Coles is a highly respected academic and has garnered a lot of very prestigious awards. That sometimes seems incongruous because if you have ever seen him speak publicly, he is a quiet and simple man who conducts very low-key work with little kids. In short, he isn't much more than a good listener who takes children seriously.

The key is that he keeps his focus very narrow. He developed a very strict methodology that let's kids tell their own stories with little or no input from the interviewers. Most of his books are heavy on quoted dialogue, which both shows what he's discovering and enables to reader to see if the questions are influencing the output. What is interesting is that the net effect of all those stories is a series of profound general patterns.

By way of illustration, this is Coles relating the experience that persuaded him to study children rather than becoming a clinical psychologist. The experience is well before he developed his research techniques, but it shows the man and his attitude towards children.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPK3zQM2dHU



Coles focuses on identifying those patterns rather than explaining them. I think his rationale is that if he seeks causation, he'll disrupt his neutrality. His goal is just to describe aspects of the experience of childhood, not to evaluate them or explain them.

Thank you for this. I watched this clip and Googled Coles, as was suggested. Obviously, he is a well-known scholar in the field of child psychiatry. But . . .

Can some one (you, Tevia, bon dea, whoever) tell me what the "take-away" is from Coles' work with children; other than that they have complex moral sensitivities? What are we supposed to conclude? What knowledge have we gained; even if it is just theoretical? Or, as Tevia suggests, what is it that is supposed to change our thinking about ourselves? About religion?

Is he telling us something about moral innateness? Is he telling us something about the metaphysics of morality? Is he telling us something about how we should be teaching children? Or is he just giving us poignant stories that accentuate the power a child's moral sense, while tugging at our heartstrings?

I did manage to find this statement:

"Theorist ‘Robert Coles’. He talked about moral intelligence in children and how it is acquired through socialization and not rules. In the moral ‘archaeology of childhood’, Coles explains that a child’s sense of moral consciousness is influenced from infancy by the decisions and behaviors of the adults (Coles, 1997)."

But, this can't be all. That "moral intelligence" in children is the product of socialization, and influenced by the decisions and behaviors of their parents. Isn't that a bit obvious; even trivial? Isn't this just a sort of intellectualization of the moral inadequacy of the dictum, "Do as I say and not as I do."

Anyway, Why are Coles' ideas so hard to articulate? Surely he must have a deeper point. What is it?

I'm surprised you expect a simple summary of an extremely complex phenomenon. What few sentences would suffice to summarize Vermeer? What practical implications stemmed from the earliest research on fractals?

If you insist, I would answer that Coles reckons that children's intellectual, emotional, moral, and spiritual lives and their interactions with their environments are extremely complex. But we knew that already, right?

Or did we? The answer is no, we didn't. What Coles did was force people to see that children are not the simpletons they were/are perceived as. Coinciding as it did with the incipient work on attachment theory, the origins of personality disorders, language acquisition, etc., Coles persuaded researchers that they needed to look closely at kids rather than reasoning from observations about adults.

Any one- or two-sentence summary must inevitably be so superficial as to be "trivial," to employ your word. The man wrote scores of books and a 1,000 academic articles and--an important point--they were not redundant. The reason we can't give you a concise statement is that Cole's work, like his subjects, is not amenable to such distillation.

Shakespeare was perhaps the greatest writer in the English language. Bach wrote really beautiful music. Fractals are patterns that reproduce at different scales. You can make any subject "trivial" if you insist that it be presented as such.

I'm surprised you expect a simple summary of an extremely complex phenomenon. What few sentences would suffice to summarize Vermeer? What practical implications stemmed from the earliest research on fractals?

COMMENT: Well, I cannot speak to Vermeer, which is art. We are not talking about art here--at least I didn't think so, but maybe we are. As for fractals, it would depend upon the context, but here is my attempt: (just for fun!)

Fractal geometry is a mathematical geometry based on computer algorithms, such as the famous Mandelbrot set. Unlike the elements of the familiar Euclidean geometry, that involve visible forms such as lines and circles, fractal geometry produces complex, reoccurring, shapes and structures at increasing scales that are encompassed by the underlying algorithm. Fractals are often cited as emergent phenomenon, such as that found in nature arising out of chaos, but instead of being mysterious in their origin, they have a mathematical basis, suggesting that other emergent phenomenon might also have such a basis.
_____________________________________

If you insist, I would answer that Coles reckons that children's intellectual, emotional, moral, and spiritual lives and their interactions with their environments are extremely complex. But we knew that already, right?

COMMENT: Well, we should know that already, because after all, the same is true of adults. Why would it be different in children? But, admittedly I do not know much about child development theories.
______________________________________

Or did we? The answer is no, we didn't. What Coles did was force people to see that children are not the simpletons they were/are perceived as. Coinciding as it did with the incipient work on attachment theory, the origins of personality disorders, language acquisition, etc., Coles persuaded researchers that they needed to look closely at kids rather than reasoning from observations about adults.

COMMENT: O.K. I appreciate that effort. But, as I am sure you can understand, this statement raises more questions that answers. I guess I would ask, very simply, what, according to Coles, distinguishes children from adults in their cognitive complexity; other than what Chomsky taught us about language acquisition.
___________________________________

Any one- or two-sentence summary must inevitably be so superficial as to be "trivial," to employ your word. The man wrote scores of books and a 1,000 academic articles and--an important point--they were not redundant. The reason we can't give you a concise statement is that Cole's work, like his subjects, is not amenable to such distillation.

COMMENT: Well, I can accept that to a point. But, Tevai identified a single book, The Spiritual Life of Children. Presumably, *that* book had a theme; a thesis; a point of view, that was being articulated. I suspect the preface contains a summary of that point of view in reasonably concise language.
____________________________________

Shakespeare was perhaps the greatest writer in the English language. Bach wrote really beautiful music. Fractals are patterns that reproduce at different scales. You can make any subject "trivial" if you insist that it be presented as such.

COMMENT: Stop confusing an academic treatise with art. An academic treatise, by its very nature, has an argument, or at least a point of view, that is supposed to dominant the work, and be supported by facts and inferences. Coles is no different--unless he is claiming that his books are just art, such that any meaning or point of view is transcendent.

> COMMENT: Stop confusing an academic treatise with
> art. An academic treatise, by its very nature,
> has an argument, or at least a point of view, that
> is supposed to dominant the work, and be supported
> by facts and inferences. Coles is no
> different--unless he is claiming that his books
> are just art, such that any meaning or point of
> view is transcendent.

Sometimes it feels like you are being intentionally obtuse. The point about art or music or literature is that the complexity renders it unamenable to simple summarization. The same is true of human development and behavior. You refer to Chomksy and language acquisition. That is one aspect of a much bigger phenomenon, but the complexity of Chomsky's work should give you pause in assuming that the greater phenomenon can be condensed into some sort of peroration.

Yes, Coles wrote over 1,000 academic articles and somewhere around 80 books. Each "has an argument, or at least a point of view, that is supposed to dominate the work, and be supported by facts and inferences." Do you seriously want me or someone else to provide a one- or two-sentence summary of over 1,000 theses?

The answer is that if you are interested, you can investigate the man and his work yourself. But I'm not going to try to summarize Shakespeare or Vermeer or child development with artificial simplicity because I don't want to fall into the pit into which you inadvertently stumbled when trying to describe fractals, whose greatest significance--their role in nature--escaped your encapsulation.

Sometimes complexity is, well, too complex for simplification.

Henry,if it takes an author hundreds of annotated pages to explain his views, it is going to be pretty hard to summarize briefly in any but the most general and and simplistic terms. Surely you can see that.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/02/2019 06:57PM by bona dea.

I need to stop coming here to skim. I always end up annoyed by several things all at once. It brings out the editor in me, which isn't perhaps my favorite side.

There is this huge idea out there that the Scandinavia countries are living proof that atheism is the "successful" way to go. (Also that they are socialist, but we needed go there.)

Problem: They aren't particularly atheist. Clipped from Wiki about Norway: Religion in Norway is mostly Lutheran Christianity, with 71.5% of the population belonging to the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Norway in 2016.[1] The Catholic Church is the next largest Christian church at 3.15%.[2][3] The unaffiliated make up 16.8% of the population.[4] Islam is followed by 2.9% of the population.[4]

That's a lower percentage of "unaffiliated" than in the U.s.

Here are Sweden's stats. "Unaffiliated" is on the rise, but are not a clear majority. "Christianity was the religion of virtually all of the Swedish population from the 12th to the early 20th century, but it has rapidly declined throughout the late 20th and early 21st century. In 2015, legally registered Christians comprised 69.9% of the total population.[1][2]"

Not sure why is it assumed this constitutes a carefree playground of happy atheists.

But that is the least of my concerns. Yes, our Puritan forefathers equated economic success with going to heaven. There is no need for anyone to continue such a dubious attitude -- which marred American society, just by the way, and certainly I see no reason to drag that around when one is leaving Mormonism. Picking a religion by examining how economically successful the countries represented by that religion are is -- crazy pants. Good heavens. It also led to a rather racist post.

Yes! One looks down on Italians and the Irish -- especially if one is stuck in a 19th century American ghetto with a small-minded, resentful father. Is anyone here living that?

Also, the ideas here of "economically successful," like the ideas of "atheist" are not all that tied to provable data. To, at random, pull one off the list and fact check it:

"The economy of the Republic of Ireland is primarily a knowledge economy, focused on services into high-tech, life sciences, financial services and agribusiness including agrifood. Ireland is an open economy (6th on the Index of Economic Freedom), and ranks first for high-value foreign direct investment (FDI) flows.[23] In the global GDP per capita tables, Ireland ranks 5th of 187 in the IMF table and 6th of 175 in the World Bank ranking."

So for heaven's sake, join the Catholic Church -- or -- you know -- like -- whatever, man.

Finally, in conclusion, I have been waiting patiently for some poster so actually LEAVE Mormonism -- as in leaving behind the need and the presumption to tell others how to live their lives. I suspect I will wait a long time. No one can tell someone who is leaving Mormonism that other belief systems will be jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.

You. Just. Don't. Know. That.

Yours in irritation,

Bonnie

>Problem: They aren't particularly atheist. Clipped from Wiki about Norway: Religion in Norway is mostly Lutheran Christianity, with 71.5% of the population belonging to the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Norway in 2016.[1] The Catholic Church is the next largest Christian church at 3.15%.[2][3] The unaffiliated make up 16.8% of the population.[4] Islam is followed by 2.9% of the population.[4]

>Here are Sweden's stats. "Unaffiliated" is on the rise, but are not a clear majority. "Christianity was the religion of virtually all of the Swedish population from the 12th to the early 20th century, but it has rapidly declined throughout the late 20th and early 21st century. In 2015, legally registered Christians comprised 69.9% of the total population.[1][2]"

In the interest of completeness, let's look at some other numbers from your source:

For Norway - "In the early 1990s, studies estimated that between 4.7% and 5.3% of Norwegians attended church on a weekly basis.[232] This figure has dropped to about 2%.[233][234]"

and - "According to the 2010 Eurobarometer Poll, 22% of Norwegian citizens responded that "they believe there is a God", 44% responded that "they believe there is some sort of spirit or life force" and 29% responded that "they don't believe there is any sort of spirit, God or life force". Five percent gave no response.[246]"

For Sweden - "At the end of 2018, 57.7% of Swedes belonged to the Church of Sweden; this number had been decreasing by about 1.5 percentage points a year for the previous 7 years and one percentage point a year on average for the previous two decades.[238][241][242][243] Approximately 2% of the church's members regularly attend Sunday services.[244] The reason for the large number of inactive members is partly that, until 1996, children automatically became members at birth if at least one of the parents was a member. Since 1996, only children that are christened become members."

And - "According to the Eurobarometer Poll 2010,[250]

18% of Swedish citizens responded that "they believe there is a god".
45% answered that "they believe there is some sort of spirit or life force".
34% answered that "they do not believe there is any sort of spirit, god, or life force".

According to a Demoskop study in 2015 about the beliefs of the Swedish showed that

21% believed in a god (down from 35 percent in 2008).
16% believed in ghosts.
14% believed in creationism or intelligent design.[251][252]

Sociology professor Phil Zuckerman claims that Swedes, despite a lack of belief in God, commonly question the term atheist, preferring to call themselves Christians while being content with remaining in the Church of Sweden.[253]"

Then for Denmark:

"Christianity is the dominant religion in Denmark. In January 2018, 75.3%[175] of the population of Denmark were members of the Church of Denmark (Den Danske Folkekirke), the officially established church, which is Protestant in classification and Lutheran in orientation.[176][N 16] This is down 0.6% compared to the year earlier and 1.6% down compared to two years earlier. Despite the high membership figures, only 3% of the population regularly attend Sunday services[177][178] and only 19% of Danes consider religion to be an important part of their life.[179]"

"According to a 2010 Eurobarometer Poll,[185] 28% of Danish citizens polled responded that they "believe there is a God", 47% responded that they "believe there is some sort of spirit or life force" and 24% responded that they "do not believe there is any sort of spirit, God or life force". Another poll, carried out in 2009, found that 25% of Danes believe Jesus is the son of God, and 18% believe he is the saviour of the world.[186]"

Scandinavia is hardly a hotbed of religiosity.

Yeah, that is the point. Religion isn't a matter of official registration: it's a matter of belief and practice.

If you ask Japanese--this has been done--what religion they are, something like 75% will choose Buddhist; another 20% will answer Shinto; another 15% will say Christian. Are 110% of Japanese people religious?

Of course not. They simply don't believe that religions are exclusive, and they are answering according to their heritage--the way a lot of Scandinavians do. If you ask how many Japanese believe in God, you get down below 50% and if you ask when they attend a service of some sort every year or have a Butsudan (family shrine), you find yourself in single digits. These people are simply not religious.

The word "religious" may have cultural, historical, or legal meanings and still not indicate actual religious belief or behavior. So no, the percentage of Swedes who self-report as Lutheran isn't indicative of religious character or values.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT: In the OP "religions" referred to
> alternative *institutional* religions. To suggest
> that "religion" encompasses all metaphysical and
> philosophical positions and worldviews, including
> "atheism," is a stretch to say the least. Although
> there may be such broad definitions in some
> contexts, that is certainly not the context of the
> OP, or of the Board generally.

The OP said (in a responding post) that "religion is important in my life." The question posed is specifically about "religion" more broadly, which the OP is requesting information on. If it can be assumed that Mormon religion constitutes only a tiny part of what we understand as "world religion," then expanding the OP's present dimensions of the question "what is religion?" is directly appropriate to answering the OP's query.

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

From this article: "[…] almost every known culture [has] a depth dimension in cultural experiences […] toward some sort of ultimacy and transcendence that will provide norms and power for the rest of life. When more or less distinct patterns of behavior are built around this depth dimension in a culture, this structure constitutes religion in its historically recognizable form. Religion is the organization of life around the depth dimensions of experience varied in form, completeness, and clarity in accordance with the environing culture."

When I did a Google search for the definition of religion, these excerpts express what I was trying to express:

Religion is:

"...a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe"

"...concern with the ultimate meaning of human existence"

"...a comprehensive worldview, or 'metaphysical moral vision' that is accepted as binding because it is held to be in itself basically true and just even if all dimensions of it cannot be either fully confirmed or refuted."

"The very attempt to define religion, to find some distinctive or possibly unique essence or set of qualities that distinguishes the religious from the remainder of human life, is primarily a Western concern."

"[…]a relatively-bounded system of beliefs, symbols and practices that addresses the nature of existence, and in which communion with others and Otherness is lived as if it both takes in and spiritually transcends socially-grounded ontologies of time, space, embodiments, and knowing."




> __________________________________________
>
> I highly recommend that you read the following two
> books, which I guarantee will provide you with a
> solid base for determining what the optimum
> religious path for YOU might be:
>
> 1) STAGES OF FAITH: The Psychology of Human
> Development and the Quest for Meaning, by James W.
> Fowler (a standard text in study of
> religion/religions studies classes, from high
> school age through graduate levels).
>
> 2) THE SPIRITUAL LIFE OF CHILDREN, by Robert Coles
> (which shows how all humans, regardless of their
> religious backgrounds, develop their own,
> individual, spiritualities from birth through
> adulthood).
>
> COMMENT: Rather than take these recommendations
> solely upon your own (religious) authority

This is not my "religious authority"--both of these books are generally used as college texts in colleges and universities throughout the United States, in addition to their use as general audience, regular, non-fiction books.


> why don't you summarize the points in each that you
> believe are particularly enlightening.

I do not have the ability to do this. Both books deal with Western culture situations at large, and I have no idea if the concepts can be effectively synopsized (I doubt that they could be here).

[I am, and have always been (since I got these two books under discussion, by Fowler and Coles) interested in how the generally-applicable points would appear if the specifics were broader: African animism, for example....or Japanese/other Asian cultures (highly dependent on "orders from above")....Russian culture (because Russian culture depends so heavily on outside, "miraculous" or "fairy tale"-type intervention in order to solve realistic, real world, problems (Russian children's literature is heavily constructed on these kinds of outside interventions, while American children's literature, on the other hand, teaches the values of self-direction, logically figuring out how to evaluate and deal with a problem, practical info on how to survive in a crisis outdoors, etc.), and so on.]

> Or at
> least tell us why "your recommendation" out of
> millions of books in theology should be taken
> unquestionably at face value.

Neither of these books are about theology. Fowler's book is about "the psychology of human development and the quest for meaning," which is a universal human topic--in this case, seen through the prism of human development stages from earliest childhood, to adulthood, and then over the course of that person's adult life.

Coles is a professor of psychiatry and medical humanities at Harvard, and his previous books in this series are: THE MORAL LIFE OF CHILDREN, and THE POLITICAL LIFE OF CHILDREN. This book on THE SPIRITUAL LIFE OF CHILDREN does attempt to broaden the research and conclusions beyond stereotypical American forms (specifically: one of his main research subjects was into the spiritual lives of Hopi children).

> My guess is that
> there are many more people who would "highly"
> recommend any number of books containing Mormon or
> Christian apologetics that will "make everything
> clear."

I don't know what this means.


> After you read these two books, you will have a
> much stronger realization of "where" you are right
> now, and where you (unbeknownst to yourself) are
> likely heading.

Because these books study the effects of religion, but in no way are they promoting religion--they are simply explaining what they have learned from their research studies ABOUT the effects of religion on ordinary people.


> COMMENT: I thought you said no proselytizing!

I am not proselytizing.


> This is like a Mormon recommending a book by Hugh
> Nibley or Truman Madsen.

I am a nevermo, and although I have seen the Nibley name before, I have no idea who he is, or who Madsen is.


> Tell us what these authors have to say that will
> enlighten us about religion.

The authors are not enlightening anyone about religion, they are explaining the EFFECTS of religion on people, and how humans who have been exposed to religions of different types develop over time, from childhood to very late adulthood.

O.K. That's fine. I apologize for being harsh.
____________________________________

This is not my "religious authority"--both of these books are generally used as college texts in colleges and universities throughout the United States, in addition to their use as general audience, regular, non-fiction books.

COMMENT: That is not a recommendation. I assume that these books are used primarily in the context of theology and psychology. As such, they may well be highly relevant to the current status of academia in those fields, and perhaps of interest to other fields. But that does not mean that they are scientifically or logically sound, such that they will hold up to theoretical scrutiny, or stand up to the test of time. There are literally thousands of books that would meet your criteria as being "generally used as college texts" at one time or another, but which were eventually discarded as fallacious. It is the theory presented, and the arguments for that theory that counts. Nothing else.
_________________________________________

> why don't you summarize the points in each that you
> believe are particularly enlightening.

I do not have the ability to do this. Both books deal with Western culture situations at large, and I have no idea if the concepts can be effectively synopsized (I doubt that they could be here).

COMMENT: I doubt this is true. If you are impressed by a book you ought to be able to articulate what it is that impresses you beyond a bare intuition that it "sounds right." Really, why don't you give it a try. Don't worry about the terms of art (concepts). I think I can handle it. (And I am sure LW will help us out if necessary!)
_________________________________

[I am, and have always been (since I got these two books under discussion, by Fowler and Coles) interested in how the generally-applicable points would appear if the specifics were broader: African animism, for example....or Japanese/other Asian cultures (highly dependent on "orders from above")....Russian culture (because Russian culture depends so heavily on outside, "miraculous" or "fairy tale"-type intervention in order to solve realistic, real world, problems (Russian children's literature is heavily constructed on these kinds of outside interventions, while American children's literature, on the other hand, teaches the values of self-direction, logically figuring out how to evaluate and deal with a problem, practical info on how to survive in a crisis outdoors, etc.), and so on.]

COMMENT: Based upon LW's summary, I think I have some idea of what you are talking about here. And, I share your concerns. There is so much cultural diversity at play here that it seems impossible to isolate children's "beliefs" (their innate mental states or propensities) from their cultural background. Moreover, each culture may well have different characteristics that invoke similar responses in children.
____________________________________________


> After you read these two books, you will have a
> much stronger realization of "where" you are right
> now, and where you (unbeknownst to yourself) are
> likely heading.

Because these books study the effects of religion, but in no way are they promoting religion--they are simply explaining what they have learned from their research studies ABOUT the effects of religion on ordinary people.

COMMENT: But I thought the source of religion was non-cultural? If they are the adverse consequences of culturally induced religion, that is not as interesting, and, I would think, not as controversial in the community of psychology. Also, what negative effects in adults are attributed to the religious beliefs in young children, other than the obvious eventual confrontation with contrary evidence?
_________________________________________

The authors are not enlightening anyone about religion, they are explaining the EFFECTS of religion on people, and how humans who have been exposed to religions of different types develop over time, from childhood to very late adulthood.

COMMENT: But isn't there some underlying theory that is being advocated here; and argued? That religion in children (wherever it comes from) produces certain effects? It is not just an explanation. They are presenting data in support of some theory. Right? What in a nutshell is the theory?

I like your posts, and your perspective!

Perhaps you could read the books yourself or you could probably find a good discussion of them online. You made a lot of wrong assumptions which you could have avoided simply by googling them. Psychology is not my field but during my university education several of my professors, who were not religious, referred to Coles in various contexts. He is well known.

Or, perhaps you could provide a substantive statement of his views, thoughts, or opinions; or perhaps an opinion as to why his writings are important and relevant; or perhaps a link of your own that you think articulates his ideas.

It is easy to tell someone to read a book. I could list a hundred off the top of my head that I think you, and everyone else here on the Board should read. But that isn't very helpful, is it?

It can be if you take a few minutes to Google it to see if it is of interest to you or asking the poster what the book is about politely instead of assuming she is pushing a worthless book on religIon and then accusing her of proselytizing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/02/2019 01:27PM by bona dea.

This is how Tevai introduced the books, one of which was by a Methodist minister:

"I guarantee will provide you with a solid base for determining what the optimum religious path for YOU might be."

This was my response:

"Rather than take these recommendations solely upon your own (religious) authority, why don't you summarize the points in each that you believe are particularly enlightening. Or at least tell us why "your recommendation" out of millions of books in theology should be taken unquestionably at face value. My guess is that there are many more people who would "highly" recommend any number of books containing Mormon or Christian apologetics that will "make everything clear."

So, how was my response "assuming she is pushing a worthless book on religion, and then accusing her of proselytizing?" I merely politely, but pointedly, asked for more substantive detail as to her recommendation.

My proselytizing comment was in response to the above "guaranty" and this:

"After you read these two books, you will have a much stronger realization of "where" you are right now, and where you (unbeknownst to yourself) are likely heading."

Now, when someone tells me to read a book, and that in so doing they guaranty I will find out where I am right now in my religious views, and where I am going in such views--that is a form of proselytizing! It is no different than someone telling me that if I read the Book of Mormon they "guaranty" that I will find personal religious enlightenment.

So, once again you just cannot handle straight talk that rubs you the wrong way in your personal views. So instead of addressing the points made, you make it about the poster. You have demonstrated this repeatedly.

My intent (which I obviously did not make clear) was to say:

When you/anyone need(s) to get perspective on a subject, it helps a great deal if you can get totally outside of that subject, and approach it as if you are a "foreigner."[*]

In this case, the approach I suggested was to take two books, each of which I know, from my own research, analyze the subject of religion from an "outside" perspective, and read/scan them for this perspective. "Religion" is so many different things to human beings, and we get caught up so easily in thinking that "our" religious perspective and history is universally true of religion generally, even when this assumption is totally inaccurate.

[*] I am, personally, acutely aware of this phenomenon when it comes to religion. I grew up with a mostly Hindu/Vedanta/Advaita religious outlook on life, which often did not synch well with my chronological peers who grew up in mainstream Lutheran, Baptist, Catholic, and Congregational homes. Growing up in those circumstances was frequently a very painful experience for me, since my observations and perspectives were coming from a place where my peers had never been and could [literally] never imagine.

When I was in elementary school I KNEW that "religion," in general, entailed many assumptions and foundational aspects that most people (regardless of chronological age) never suspect exist, let alone understand--but I DID (at least in part) know DID exist because I was OUTSIDE of their "box."

In my post, I was trying to provide a way to allow the OP a practical and accessible way to get outside of the OP's existing "box," because it is only outside of that box that a person can truly see the box's limitations and lacunae.

Some of us got it and are aware of who Robert Coles is. I guess my issue was Henry making assumptions without bothering to find out by doing research or asking questions. Then he demanded, not asked for a summary which can be time consuming. To his credit, he did apologize for his tone. The same has happened to me when I have recommended books of the historical Jesus among other topics. People make assumptions just as Henry did and then make demands. I used to write summaries for people. For the most part, they went unread.I spent time on those. I decided long time ago that people can do their own research and homework. If they ask, I will provide references and book titles. Those who are interested can follow through. Those who aren't can ignore me.I didn't see a problem with what you said,Tevai. Another point, if a poster is asking someone to take the time and effort to write a book summary or whatever for you, ask, don't demand. You will get further.

I read her post and yours along with the entire thread before.I replied

Mormonism qualifies as a religion the same way a sh*t sandwich qualifies as lunch.

Although I've left the Mormon church, I do still believe in God, and I'm actively trying to find a church that more accurately reflects my beliefs and values. Currently I'm investigating the Eastern Orthodox church.

COMMENT: I am confused. Is the religion you seek supposed to provide: (1) new spiritual insights and understanding of God and the universe; (2) A comforting validation of what you already believe; (3) A "framework" that is vague enough to support your need for just some sort of faith in "God;" or (4) the comfort of a community, believe what they may. Perhaps to some extent you are looking for all of the above.

Unfortunately, the first motivation is unlikely to be fulfilled because there is no reason whatsoever that *any* religion can offer "spiritual insight" and "spiritual understanding." Spiritual "truth" (if there is such a thing) is a transcendent experience that is highly subjective, and not religion-dependent. As for (2) and (3), a religion that does not profess any objective truth and spiritual "authority" about "God" (over and above what you might otherwise think) is not of much use for purposes of worship or faith. Finally, if (4) is what you really need, I suggest you try a charitable organization. At least then you will be engaged in something that is beyond your own interest.
_________________________________________

Does/did anyone else get a sort of PTSD when they went into other churches? I haven't been to a Mormon church since March, but I still feel unsettled in religious settings. In Mormonism, I never felt like I could look at anyone who was talking (out of respect maybe?), and I just tried to get in and out. I also never really felt like I was wanted at all, or part of the community. Going to other churches, that feeling is still there, and I get panic attacks if I can't immediately leave. I can't even walk into the building unless I'm following someone else; it's the only way I feel a little safer. The idea of going at all makes me anxious, but I really do want to go. The idea of talking to people makes me really nervous. I am shy, but not like this. I feel really stuck, like I can't move on from Mormonism and find something that would really make me feel fulfilled.

COMMENT: Pay attention to this post-Mormon cognitive dissonance. Perhaps it is trying to tell you something important about religion generally.
____________________________________

If anyone else has ever experienced this, do you have any advice on how to cope with the "trauma" (word used lightly) of the Mormon church so you could give another church a chance?

COMMENT: Stop blaming your experience of Mormonism for the shortcomings of other religions. They are perfectly capable of generating their own false doctrines and negative impressions.
____________________________________

Also, how did you go about learning all new doctrine? I spent a lot of time learning everything there is to know about Mormonism, so the fact that I'm kind of going in blind doesn't make me feel any more comfortable in other churches.

COMMENT: What you will find is that new "doctrines" are really just new "dogmas." It is like trading one set of dogmatic falsehoods for another. No wonder you are not comfortable! I would be worried about you if you were!

_____________________________________

Having said all of the above, I would like to end on a positive note. The universe is a complex place, with few answers about ultimate reality, scientific or otherwise. There is plenty of room for a personal belief and faith in "God;" or at least in some sort of intelligent Being and ultimate purpose. It is only when some organized religion tries to ram the specifics down your throat that problems set in.

Anyway, that is my take.

Thank you all for your suggestions! To clarify, I am trying, on my own, to establish what it is that I actually believe in before I commit to a church (Orthodoxy happened to be the closest on the basic things I compared when I first left Mormonism, hence why I'm studying it at the moment). I also thank you for your kindness towards me still wanting to be involved with religion. I know it isn't for everyone, and I know that truth is presented in many other forms; this just happens to be the right one for me, and I appreciate that I wasn't called out for being idiotic or anything like that.

Summer, thank you for your advice to take a break. I'll definitely be doing that for the next little while.

To all the rest of you, again, thank you for your kind advice!

Whatever path you take, whatever home you find, decide it after careful consideration. Unless the group you attend is way over the top and out and out unfriendly it is difficult to arrive at a fair assessment after just one visit. If you have been a Mormon for any length of time you have perhaps been conditioned to the idea that other churches are part of the "abomination" that Mormonism is here to fight. Most of what are termed Christian churches fit under the same spiritual umbrella though they do have some differences. Most Christians I think would say that they are of far less importance than the core beliefs that are shared in common. New places can be intimidating, especially when they are difference from what you might be used to, but I am positive about people in general, that they will respond in kind to the vibe you yourself give.

Reminder:

There is no proselytizing allowed on this board.

Thank you.

I agree which is why I didn't.

kentish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree which is why I didn't.

This reminder wasn't meant for you, kentish.

Someone else, new to the board, didn't know that we don't allow proselytizing here, and that person posted a proselytizing post which had to be removed.

I didn't want to call that person out by name (especially since they are a newbie), so that's why I made the general announcement.

How about looking for your truth and meaning outside of religion.
I have often wished there was the "Truth Church" as opposed to " "true church". Truth does exist and is whatever it reveals itself to be. It is sometimes difficult to discover and discovering what "isn't" true leads us closer to discovering what is. Truth stands on it's own and is not negotiable or compromising. Truth is found in many things and is where you find it.

I would NOT look for it (truth) in a faith based organization. Faith based organizations are not concerned with finding truth or solutions to real world problems but are more about creating community and pushing feel good dogma. I have found a new group of friends who are open minded and intelligent. This has been real helpful to me in moving beyond Mormonism. We all need people we can identify with.

I doubt that Unitarianism would provoke any bad feelings. The UU is big on things that Mormons lack. Benefits are, among others, much to do with ethical behavior, little doctrine, and zero dogma. It's a church that celebrates diversity and promotes LGBTQ acceptance. Depending on your pastor, sermons may contain interesting history, like the Civil Rights Act, march of Martin Luther King, etc. They also highlight the beliefs of many other cultures and religions. When I used to attend (there is none near where I now live), on the weekend adjacent to Nov. 1, All Saints Day/Dia de los Muertos, a woman dressed in traditional Mexican costume and face painted in the Dia de los Muertos tradition, performed a traditional dance during the service, and I could not help thinking how dreadfully "inappropriate" (read: "different") that would seem to any Mormon.

Once you properly process what you are going through in leaving the Mormon Church, you might even find that its not necessary to join another church to nurture your belief in God. Churches are just groups of people trying to follow a particular train of thought in order to make sense of life. There are so many, its very unlikely that any one church, or person, has found the 'right' answer.

I can understand people looking for a social group to belong to, and some churches are good for that, but you don't need any church to tell you what the correct beliefs are.

Many people are born into religions, and gain a lot of social and community benefits from staying in their church group (Catholicism is a good example of a church where many people come together for social and cultural benefits, rather than doctrinal support). Mormonism probably fits this bill for many also. It would be hard to join a new religion and expect to fit into this kind of community, while also testing out doctrines.

In short, do some reading, talk to people, believe what you like about God, but choose a church group based on your needs for good company and human contact! Most churches will not demand that you be a member, sign up to anything or pay them according to a rigidly controlled formula.

Your 'salvation' does not depend on your beliefs about God. In fact, you don't need to be saved at all!

How about not following?

Personally, I think it was good to have a place that was somewhat familiar, but far enough away from Mormonism that I wasn't being reminded of Mormonism. That ended up being the Episcopal Church, but it could be any number of faith groups out there who are loving and seeking truth. Some of the familiar music (and new music) was comforting, liturgy was something new, and the democratic process for governing the church is messy (sometimes frustrating) but overall better.

In my opinion, the most important concept for an ex-Mormon considering a new faith community is to make sure we're not expecting it to be everything Mormonism was supposed to be. This just sets us up for disappointment, because no organization will meet those expectations. Accepting that reality is important. If you think an organization is everything Mormonism was supposed to be, it might be another cult-like group.

I have been going to Ecankar with a friend.
It is interesting.
But join?
I think not!
I studied Michael Tellinger's book "The Slave species of God" and then moved to Sitchen's translation of "The Lost Book of Enki".
This caused an upheavel of my religious stance. I am not preaching truth or falsness. I am only saying that unless we are open minded enough to evaluate in our own minds these concepts we can in no way make a good judgement of is it fact or fiction!
Feel free to comment but not blast!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/10/2019 07:14PM by thedesertrat1.

In this day and age it may be important to ask yourself if you consider yourself "progressive" or "conservative"... Churches are filled with people who lean one way or the other.