Ask myself why adult mormons cling so strongly.
Taken me years to fully understand the strength herd mentality has on average humans.

They have so much invested by the time they become adults, that they would rather defend being wrong than face a paradigm shift. So, they won't look at anything that challenges what they need to be true.

I would say human need to have a foundational myth as an organizing principal (to deal with the chaos, unfairness, and bleakness that can be a part of life.) But more than that, Mormons have an unusual amount of indoctrination that can be difficult to overcome. There are also cultural factors.

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would say human need to have a foundational myth
> as an organizing principal (to deal with the
> chaos, unfairness, and bleakness that can be a
> part of life.)

That's straight up Nietzsche, who wrote that people inevitably use mythology to simplify a complex world because they lack the mental and emotional wherewithal to confront reality.

It's also compatible with dagny's comment because the greater the sunk costs, the higher the psychological value of the protective mythology.

Put another way, takes guts to go it alone? More than most have by a long shot.

First step: Never fear being wrong.

--a quote from Miss Ann Thrope, Drag Queen

It takes--and even more notably took--incredible courage for someone raised in a cult like Mormonism to turn their back and strike out alone. Such people have my deepest admiration.

I don't think it's accidental that it is the more prosperous, stable societies (the U.S., Canada, Western Europe) that are abandoning religion at a faster clip. Once your needs for food, shelter, safety, and a basic prosperity are met, there is a lessened need for the mythology.

Europe had a horrible experience with unimaginable horrors due to religious wars and the failure of God to intervene in the most terrible situations. That is the main reason they got sick of religion.

slskipper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Europe had a horrible experience with unimaginable
> horrors due to religious wars and the failure of
> God to intervene in the most terrible situations.
> That is the main reason they got sick of religion.

There was an upsurge in religion around the time of the wars, even Spiritualism from those who wanted t speak to dead relatives.

The decline of religion in Europe is down to multiple factors. Prosperity made people less religious in the west and hostile governments in the east. Sexual things would be another like clergy abuse, sex outside marriage, homosexuality etc.

to free fools from chains they revere. Voltaire

bad shepherd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ask myself why adult mormons cling so strongly.
> Taken me years to fully understand the strength
> herd mentality has on average humans.


It’s obviously not just Mormons who choose to suspend disbelief in favor of enjoying the movie.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bad shepherd Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Ask myself why adult mormons cling so strongly.
> > Taken me years to fully understand the strength
> > herd mentality has on average humans.
>
>
> It’s obviously not just Mormons who choose to
> suspend disbelief in favor of enjoying the movie.

Let's just say that has been painfully obvious in recent times. One example which won't upset the usual suspects

I remember watching the soccer world cup final in Qatar not long ago and remarked how corrupt FIFA (the governing body is). I was told promptly that I was just spreading a conspiracy theory. I had to point out that FIFA has been investigated and found guilty of corruption... even though any fool could see the fruits of their corruption all over the place right down to choosing Qatar as a venue. (Even though they had never previously qualified for a World Cup).

There's no record in the archives of your saying that FIFA is corrupt or of anyone calling that a "conspiracy theory." Can you show us where that conversation occurred?

Or are you just making the story up now?

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There's no record in the archives of your saying
> that FIFA is corrupt or of anyone calling that a
> "conspiracy theory."

Perhaps that's because there is no record of me saying that the conversation took place on RFM? That's gaslighting.

No, this conversation did not take place on here and yes, people do meet together in groups to watch sports. I think there were at least fifty of us watching it on a screen in the club. It's a good chance for friends and family to catch up with each other, and no, we don't just talk about sports either. It is much better than Zoom or Relief Society.

The story was about how pervasive this "conspiracy theory" narrative has become. International soccer is notorious for its corruption. It has been investigated a number of times, officials have resigned and even the FBI has gotten involved. There is no theory, it's fact. I thought this would be a good non-political example, but clearly not for you. Across the world, every time someone mentions something controversial, someone tries to use this phrase to shut down dialog.

Since my sports example didn't "land" for some people, let's talk about the church's finances.

It's sad that when I try and talk about the Ensign Peak business with some people, they either complain the church is being persecuted or say I'm suggesting a "conspiracy theory". Their mind can't even go to these places. They won't even entertain the idea that the church hides money from the members and from the authorities.

Bait and switch, as usual.

Misunderstanding is not "gaslighting." And no one here is going to argue that the church's finances are not a scam.

Keep in mind that roughly two thirds of those that LDS Inc claims as members have left the church, either officially, or just walked away.

Reality is actually doing pretty well.

Reality is doing fine, however people’s grip on reality is pretty tenuous at best.
Look how many well educated college grads believe they are not really going to die when their life is over, because they’re special God loves them especially, more than all the ‘others’ who don’t worship my special God, (insert idol) and that gives me imaginary power over those ‘others’ who god doesn’t love because they are not special like me and my special God. Given that imaginary power over you, that justifies anything and everything I do to you.
Any man can be good and/or bad.
But it takes religion to make good men evil.

I keep my grateful heart.

Don't need to be part of this or that.

Not ashamed to maybe admit nothing much can get to me these days.

I see a lot of fake this and that too, and doubt that anybody these days is likely to be able to keep up with me.

Whoever thinks that I am going to chase their buck has got me figured wrong.

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high for the price for the privilege of owing yourself."
- F. Nietzsche



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/23/2023 12:28AM by GNPE.

enjoy the movie, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5eqps2O7s8

Blood is thicker than water and religion is thicker than blood.

And the Q15 are thicker than thieves.

It's because tyrants burned and murdered people who thought for themselves throughout the Middle Ages and before then. Independence of thought and action has been bred out of humans by selection and by terror. Every so often, a society has a purge of such people. Some countries are still doing it.

In the case of Mormonism you have a degree of self-selection.

> Independence of thought and
> action has been bred out of humans by selection
> and by terror.

How exactly does natural selection do that? Can you provide any scientific sources to support your assertion?

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Independence of thought and
> > action has been bred out of humans by selection
> > and by terror.
>
> How exactly does natural selection do that? Can
> you provide any scientific sources to support your
> assertion?

I was talking about witch trials, purges, inquisitions etc. I thought that was obvious for context.

You can see how compliant humans are by reading about human history. Just think of how many atrocities could have been avoided if people stopped thinking like a herd.

Doesn't it take a herd thinking in unison to stop another herd's atrocity? Fighting fire with fire.

What I see is it's the conclusions that the herds doing the "thinking" reach that are dangerous.

We need more herds thinking with reason and empathy. Healthy herd mentality?

You believe the problem is "people thinking like a herd." I think the problem is more basic: namely, people not thinking at all.

The question is whether thought aligns with facts. You, for instance, have insisted on false interpretations of Orwell and Malthus, warned us of a War on Cash that was lost decades ago, and told us that a communist government produced the greatest economic record in the history of humankind.

Is that sort of "independent thinking" useful? No, it is not. It is no better than the ramblings of a person with profound mental illness. Independence from factual reality is nothing of which to be proud.

>You believe the problem is "people thinking like a herd." I think the problem is more basic: namely, people not thinking at all.

Speak to them and you will find many of them do think. The problem is that their thinking is not original. They get their thoughts and ideas from other people, and may even believe they are their own. This applies to every aspect of life even down to the food we eat and the clothes we wear each year. Who decided we should have ugly fashions in the 1970s? You could probably trace them back to a small group of individuals, and peer pressure meant most people copied them.

> Is that sort of "independent thinking" useful? No, it is not. It is no better than the ramblings of a person with profound mental illness.

We live in a society, which like the church, pretends that ordinary people have far more input than they do. You can make as many flippant comments about that as you want, but that is not useful to anyone including you.

You too have the right to a personal opinion, even when it is not useful. I do not consider the statement you just made to be useful to wider society. We are living in a time of rapid change, and it is our duty to ensure those changes are beneficial to future generations. We cannot let individuals or interest groups con us with kindness or blind us with fear. We cannot let others make destructive choices for us and then tell us we mustn't disagree.

It's funny how you mention mental illness though. When a society acts collectively it is capable of immense atrocities on the battlefield or elsewhere. Yet that society will mostly be composed of supposedly sane people. Perhaps we shouldn't equate constant obedience with sanity?

So your opinions, based as they are in demonstrated factual errors, are going to lead society to a better place?

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So your opinions, based as they are in
> demonstrated factual errors, are going to lead
> society to a better place?

That question, as it is currently phrased, is neither true nor useful, is it? You know fine well that you have demonstrated almost nothing.

Now let's reword your question into a sensible one:
"I do not agree with what you said. Do you believe your opinions will lead society to a better place?"

Yes, no and maybe.

Yes, because a healthy society benefits from more than one opinion and a large degree of personal autonomy.

No, because everyone makes errors (you certainly do) and has the right to change their opinion on anything. That is not the same as being forced into the prevailing opinion(s).

Maybe, because unlike you, I look at a wide range of ideas from a variety of sources, cultures and time periods. Some of my predictions have already been proven correct, e.g. that certain pandemic restrictions would be rebranded in non-health related terms, even though they do not benefit society.

It is clear that my ideas are more beneficial than yours. Why? Because I would allow you to have an opinion and you wouldn't return that favor to others. You also display a high degree of compliance to those who hold power, without asking the very basic questions of how they got into power, how they maintain power and how they will hang onto power when challenged. Once you ask those questions, a lot more becomes clear like how useful that power grouping is to the rest of us.

This was a target-rich environment, so let me just take one statement from the milieu: "Because I would allow you to have an opinion and you wouldn't return that favor to others."

Do tell, how has LW prevented you from having an opinion?

No hurry. It's going to take a while for me to buy some more popcorn.

lawr3nce Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lot's Wife Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So your opinions, based as they are in
> > demonstrated factual errors, are going to lead
> > society to a better place?
>
> That question, as it is currently phrased, is
> neither true nor useful, is it? You know fine well
> that you have demonstrated almost nothing.

It is exceptionally useful. When deciding whose arguments to credit and whose to disregard, nothing is more important than track records.


--------------
> Yes, because a healthy society benefits from more
> than one opinion and a large degree of personal
> autonomy.

Society benefits from those who believe in witchcraft? Those who believe the earth is flat? Those who think communism is a better economic system than capitalism?

No. Society doesn't need that.


--------------
> No, because everyone makes errors (you certainly
> do) and has the right to change their opinion on
> anything.

When have you changed your opinion on any matter on this board?


--------------
> Maybe, because unlike you, I look at a wide range
> of ideas from a variety of sources, cultures and
> time periods.

I venture that I am familiar with a lot more sources, cultures, and time periods than you are. Hell, you literally told us two days ago that the PRC used communism to generate an economic performance vastly better than any other country has in history--which is screamingly false. You told us you have "friends" from East Central Europe but evince no familiarity with anything that has happened there since 1989--really since the 1950s. Why, just today you misread a post about Europe's religious wars as meaning the 20th century rather than the 16th, 17th, and early 18th centuries that is what the phrase "Europe's religious wars" means.

You're out of your depth, son.


--------------
> Some of my predictions have already
> been proven correct, e.g. that certain pandemic
> restrictions would be rebranded in non-health
> related terms, even though they do not benefit
> society.

First, you prove my point. You claim that people have the right to change their opinions, which is a truism, and then immediately proceed to declare how insightful you are rather than indicating any willingness to reconsider your views. Second, what "pandemic restrictions [were] rebranded in non-health related terms [that] do not benefit society?"

Dare you put that out in the open and risk the potential sanitization of sunlight?


-----------------
> It is clear that my ideas are more beneficial than
> yours.

Uh, not with regard to Orwell, Malthus, Chinese history, Soviet history, Eastern European history, or European religious history.


----------------
> Why? Because I would allow you to have an
> opinion and you wouldn't return that favor to
> others.

How have I "disallowed anyone his or her opinion?" What power do I have to do that?


-------------------
> You also display a high degree of
> compliance to those who hold power. . .

You are free to explain where I err as other people frequently do. But without specifics, ominous phrases like "those who hold power" mean nothing.


-------------------
> . . .without asking
> the very basic questions of how they got into
> power, how they maintain power and how they will
> hang onto power when challenged.

We can test that proposition with the Chinese example. I know exactly how the PRC came to power; I know how the ROC achieved power, too. I know, for instance, that the KMT modeled its internal structure after that of the CPSU and that Chiang Kai-shek sent his son Chiang Ching-Kuo to Moscow to learn how to run a country properly. I know that the latter spent 13 years in the USSR and married a Russian woman who accompanied him back to China and then to Taiwan. Did you know that?

I know that in the middle 1970s the ROC attempted to negotiate an alliance with the USSR through the offices of the unofficial Soviet emissary Victor Louis. Did you know that?

More recently, I know how the PRC achieved and maintained its modern power through Deng Xiaoping's economic reforms. While you argue that the Chinese government remained "communist" and despite that fact its economy somehow grew explosively, I know that the answer to the paradox is that Beijing used capitalism to enrich China even as, in the last decade, it recentralized political control in the hands of CCP. Likewise, I know what Stalin's NEP was and how it differed from what China has done.

The bottom line is you have a few mistaken ideas imbibed from right-wing sources that date to the 1950s and would like others to believe those are valuable. But they are not. They provide zero insight, for example, into the nature of Chinese power and the hence the threat that that country poses to the West.

A variety of sources is great provided that they are accurate. But your sources are patently ridiculous and you don't read or think widely enough to realize that. It is you who are the sheep unwilling or unable to fact-check what his shepherd feeds him.


--------------
> Once you ask
> those questions, a lot more becomes clear like how
> useful that power grouping is to the rest of us.

Questions are great. Answers are better. You never get to the answers; rather, you spin like a scratched vinyl album, repeating the same old half-baked theories again and again and again.

they taught that if you followed all the commandments, teachings, etc., that you would have your family forever, that you would not suffer. I was anxious to get my PB as I wanted to know if I would get married and it said I would and it would be a man of God or whatever and that I would not be required to suffer unduly at any time.

My own family life didn't go along so great. I worried about us being a forever family. I was going to make sure my family I had and raised would make it.

So much for that. I didn't like most mormons. I didn't like the girls my age except one before she went inactive in jr. high. I went to church because I felt I had to. I didn't go and socialize.

It didn't work. As my long, long time therapist said, "We tested mormonism to its limits and it failed us." Yep.

I thought from the start that gays can't change to straight (like they told me they had to) and it was that very thing that made me reconsider. I finally found some peace when I realized "he" could never be what they said he could. I'm lucky I got out. I never stayed for the people. I only know a few mormons who I really respect and they weren't ones I met at church, but where I worked in my 20s.