Hello All,

By now I'm guessing everyone has their book. Hope so. If not, you should have it this week.

Before we begin I want to announce that I have at last depleted my personal supply of books. Please spread the work, as I continue to receive emails from hopeful folks who want the book, and it pains me that they can't get one. Hopefully the publisher will be releasing the 2nd printing soon. As a suggestion to those who want the book, you might want to contact American Atheists (publisher) and leave a message to the president David Silverman re: the status and date for release.

To begin, I want to thank SC and others interested in conducting a forum thread or FB discussion on DM for all you've done in trying to organize things.

Frankly, the idea of a mass engagement is pretty overwhelming to me, mostly, I think, because I'm so new at this form of interacting.

Some thoughts have crossed my mind in terms of my involvement in future forum thread or FB discussions that I would like to share with all who might be interested. I offer them merely as ideas or suggestions for consideration, and do so in the form of the following questions:

- Does it make sense to have a series of continuous forum threads or FB discussions dedicated to each section of the book, e.g. a "DM-Intro.," "DM-Preface," "DM-Ch. 1"..."DM-Ch. 8", "DM-Epilogue", "DM-Pers. PS", "DM-Append. A"?

- Does it make sense to schedule and calendar the dates for launching each new thread/FB series, where I would be invited, if desired, by a designated thread moderator to attend the kick-off the series, and then participate with subsequent threads in each series, which I would follow if and as I can, as merely a participating member of the group and not a guest author?

- Does it make sense for there to be a designated or volunteered moderator for each thread or thread series, whose task would be to: (1) schedule and calendar for the initial and subsequent threads in the designated series; (2) establish criteria for questions (e.g. "relevant to the section of the book being discussed," etc.); (2) call for questions that satisfy the criteria; (3) present questions to me for initial series-thread selection; and (4) moderate the thread on-line at the designated date and time by presenting the selected questions, allowing me to answer, and then opening up the discussion for follow-up thoughts, comments and related questions for a predetermined period of time?

- Does it make sense to limit participation in each thread- series only to those who have actually read the related section of the book being discussed in the designated thread(s)?

I offer these "suggestions-as-questions" to stimulate thinking, and to foster comprehensiveness and inclusiveness in creating something of value for members of the forum now and in the future who are, or might be, interested in better understanding and working with the book as written.

I'm concerned that, whether in this forum or in FB, a lack of some essential order might derail and devalue the effort. This is not to say that the "order" implied in the above questions is the best way to proceed, or is even a viable way.

Finally, I'm quick to say that I have found the various ad hoc threads on the subject of the book of great interest and value, particularly those that engage in lively discussion around the subject of Atheism and Theism in their varied forms. In this regard I see no reason why such splinter threads (for lack of a better term) can't be started as they typically are to dig deeper into a particular question or concern.

I'm willing to discuss the above and entertain other thoughts and suggestions as well, recognizing and confident that at some point some consensus will obtain.

Look forward to any thoughts, and to participating as we move forward.

TR



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 05/06/2013 08:08PM by tomriskas.

Hi Tom. Thanks for offering to participate in discussing your book and for proposing those strategies for getting organized. It's a privilege to have this opportunity.

I got my book last week. Thanks for sending! I am slowly making my way through. I'm not sure where everybody else is, but it will take me at least another week to finish. My situation is a little different because although I'm well pretty versed in post-structuralism, psychoanalytic theory and analytic philosophy, I know next to nothing about Mormonism. So I'm simultaneously reading introductory texts (Douglas Davies, Introduction to Mormonism, for example) along with your work. It's fun and I'm learning a lot, but it's taking me more time than others, probably.

It makes sense for us to figure out some kind of system for engaging in the most productive and satisfying discussions possible. I'm sure that others will weigh in with their thoughts and ideas.

In the meantime, I'm wondering. As the book's author, are there questions you'd like us to consider as we read? Anything specific you'd like us to focus on? Anything you want to foreground as the book's author? I'd be very interested in any questions you want to put on the table.

Thanks again, and I'm looking forward to discussing your work!

Df

Darkfem Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...
> It makes sense for us to figure out some kind of
> system for engaging in the most productive and
> satisfying discussions possible.
...

Hopefully some sort of a process that does not require
logging into Facebook and participating there. If useful
stuff is posted over at that site/community, perhaps it
can be linked to and made easily available (as a public
posting, via a second browser window) to us, as we work
our way through relevant RfM threads.

UD

Darkfem,

Curious about post-structuralism, I pulled this off Wikipedia:

"Post-structuralism rejects the idea of a literary text having a single purpose, a single meaning, or one singular existence. Instead, every individual reader creates a new and individual purpose, meaning, and existence for a given text."


I don't know if this snippet is accurate, but I sure hope so. :)

Hi, thingsithink,

Yes, that's a nice summation. Poststructuralism is basically a collection of related theories that attempt to explain the relationship between meaning and language. The analytic called "deconstruction," closely associated with French philosopher Jacques Derrida, emerged out of this approach.

If you're interested in reading further, the best background text on poststructuralism I have come across is a classic by Chris Weedon, Feminist Practice and Poststructuralist Theory.

Feel free to email me and I'll send you a few chapters: darkfem.now@gmail.com



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/07/2013 12:16AM by Darkfem.

Darkfem Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > In the meantime, I'm wondering. As the book's
> author, are there questions you'd like us to
> consider as we read? Anything specific you'd like
> us to focus on? Anything you want to foreground as
> the book's author? I'd be very interested in any
> questions you want to put on the table.

DF,

Thanks for the thoughts. These discussions, if they are to be productive in any meaningful way to the readers of the book, will, I would think, be fueled by their curiosity, confusions and uncertainties while reading the book, as well as their desire to learn and understand what the author is pointing to or trying to get at, and why.

If this is close to the mark, then my questions will come primarily from your questions, views, confusions (if any), reactions and curiosity.

My hope, and I address this to all, is that in discussing the book we address what's "in the book" as a starting point and go from there in pursuit of explanation, implications, applications, analysis and further deconstruction. In other words, I would prefer to avoid, if possible, repeating what is already written, even though we might need to revisit the text or remind each other of what was read but perhaps not noted or remembered at the time.

This would, of course, naturally limit participants to these book threads to those who have actually read the book. This is not to say, however, that, as was suggested by someone else, there could not be other threads running parallel to the book threads that would allow for side discussions (as, for example, the side conversation in this thread on the subject of post-structuralism, which is not, by the way, as I understand it in its post-modernist context, consistent with the modified naturalism I espouse in the book, or the conceptual analysis and psycho-social assesment I apply and advocate.)

Back to DF's quote above. To start, here are two questions I might expect to come from you (given your academic interests) that come from a careful reading of the text:

- What are the implications of a "contextualist, historicist, non-scientistic (not non-scientific), pragmatist, fallibilist, non-relativist naturalism without metaphysical foundations" on the Atheism espoused in the book?

And here's one from the Epilogue:

- What are the psycho-social therapeutic advantages, if any, to the Freudian, Existentialist and Buddhist alternatives to traditional theism, and are there other naturalistic alternatives as well that might be considered?

One final thought for those, like you, who are admittedly not well versed in Mormon doctrine, or for those who consider themselves to be "spiritually" inclined, non-Mormon deists or theists (or believers in some "god" or "jesus"): Use all references to Mormon deity, faith and revelation as stand-ins for "any" theistic or transentental belief system. The same analytical approach apply.

If there are such alternative conceptions among us (and it seems there are), I suggest they be put to the test (privately or publicly)...keeping in mind in doing so the following suggested evaluative constraints and requirements presented in the book, including its numerous notes and references:

(1) the likely "betrayals of doubt" experienced, if any, the suggested "four requirements for resolving "Peck's dilemma," if relevant and valid, including the use of Loftus' "OTF," and the various "reasoning fallacies" presented and illustrated in the Introduction, if and as needed;

(2) the essential perspective presented in the Foundational Preface, if arguably reasonable and warranted;

(3) the "problem of reality," "instructive deconstructive conversation," "fundamental premises" and analytical "methodology" presented in Chapter 1, if arguably applicable and reasonable; and

(4) the "conditions of rationality," "parity argument" and "evasive possibility strategies" presented in Chapter 2, if pertinent and reasonable.

(Note: As a relevant aside for those who might be interested, in all of the above "if" qualifications there seems to me to be an "a priori" requirement to first seek to understand the evaluative constraints and requirements suggested in the book, as referenced in the four areas above. Obtaining (including confirming) such an understanding before, say, dismissing such analytical constraints or requirements as being limited, irrelevant or not applicable to one's personal beliefs seems to be what I have in mind when I advocate throughout the importance of "intellectual integrity." And subjecting one's beliefs in gods, spirits, spirit, angels, transcendent purpose or meaning, and/or any other form of meta-physical reality to rigorous deconstructive analysis before declaring or advocating them to others as worthy of belief or acceptance is, in part, what I have in mind when I speak of being "epistemically responsible.")

"(as, for example, the side conversation in this thread on the subject of post-structuralism, which is not, by the way, as I understand it in its post-modernist context, consistent with the modified naturalism I espouse in the book, or the conceptual analysis and psycho-social assesment I apply and advocate.)"

I haven't read the book, but I had concluded the above from your earlier posts. I am interested post-structuralism - it might ad to the discussion. I'm expecting it will.

I've been away from the RfM action most of the day - thanks for getting things rolling Tom.

I'll toss in my $0.02.

I think for the sake of Tom's time, having some slightly structured threads would be good so he doesn't have to figure out all of the threads that might be DM related and try to follow/respond to all of them.

I like the idea of being able to segue whenever we want into spontaneous side discussions is good too (I would imagine that would happen anyway since that's pretty par for the RfM course).

I don't know if "hesitant" is the right word, but having "moderators" would be good to kind of kick things off for each section/chapter, but I'd hate for anyone to feel obligated to "moderate" the conversation. It's probably more of a definition issue. Maybe "Discussion Starter" would be better?

I'd be happy to start a discussion on "Beyond the Betrayal of Doubt." Friday evening (MST), 10 May? We can set that up as a test case and see how it goes, then debrief and go from there?

I'm picturing me coming up with a handful of open-ended questions for the group more than for Tom. I see Tom's role being more along the lines of participant in that discussion with his own questions/comments just like the rest of us. However, since he has more background than most of us in the topics we will be discussing, if there are points needing clarification, anyone in the conversation can directly ask/reference him.

I think having read the section/chapter under discussion is vital for participation. I can see the conversation easily being sidetracked by curious onlookers who are well-meaning, but end up asking something that is clearly found in the book. Since the number of posts per thread is relatively short, we could end up being sidetracked quite easily/frequently. However, being an open forum, and knowing that many of those who use the board will never read this, they will have no clue that it is a thread "rule" to have read first. We may want to put a mild/gentle "suggestion" at the beginning of each new section/chapter to make them aware.

One concern I have is meeting the intellectual needs of everyone. I know there are lots of people in the group who will mentally outstrip me as I stand around fumbling at the starting gate. For those of us who are neuron-challenged, please feel free in chiming in even with what you think might be intellectually shallow questions: you won't be alone. For the smartypants in the group, be patient with us.

Anyone else with suggestions for how we run the show, please chime in.

Hi SC. Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I'll be there on the 10th, if that's the date. Let me know please.

I'm really OK with however you all want to proceed, and appreciate your sensitivity to everyone's time and interests. Perhaps, in retrospect, things will evolve as they need to once we get started. I'm new at this, so my concerns might be unwarranted.

As for the concerns about the nature of the discussion, the nature of the questions will I think set the pace.

This said, our discussions will be geared to making the analylitical arguments and psycho-social assessment of the Mormon faith, as I conceived and constructed it, pragmatically and intellectually accessible to all who are truly interested. In the process I expect to receive as much, if not more, from all of you than whatever I might be able to give.

(BTW, among the recent email requests for books, I received an email from a BYU professor of Religious Studies, requesting the book. I asked Steve if he knew him, and he didn't. But the email address was from BYU and his name is on the faculty roster. At the time I had a copy and sent it to him.)

T

First, I rec'd my book today. How exciting! Thank you so much, Tom, for your generosity, and patience and work in dealing with customs/mail to get it to me. I dived in at the deep end, as in not starting on pg 1, but heading right to the chapter about converting/deconverting. I was surprised to read you were a convert, Tom, something we have in common. I did not deconvert or think my way out, which at first bothered me, as I thought I should have, plus I thought it makes for a better exmo story here at RfM, but I just left after a long period of feeling really depressed in Mormonism. I have found RfM helpful in working through why I joined and why I left and all the feelings associated with both ends of that journey.

About the conversations re the book: I hadn't envisioned something so structured when this idea first came up. I don't think we've ever had this type of response or request here before. I can see that if it is going to be that structured it may work better in a different environment. But definitely you would have some offshoot threads here about that discussion and other tangents from the book and general thoughts it generates.

I also hadn't visualized it being so structured as to be an actual live chat-type thing at a specific time. That would work, though, if it could be captured for those who couldn't make it to the live event (i.e., saved, transcribed, taped?).

Also, I hadn't thought of Author Tom being involved, or available, for live events, or even multiple RfM threads. If he is, all the better! But it's a big ask. Maybe we could outline the expectations, if that is even the right word, as I don't think we should expect too much, if anything, from a person just because they happen to be the author. Time is always a big consideration for everybody. Tom's idea of being a contributor, but not the author, for the discussions, in whatever form, sounds good, for his sake. I guess this will depend on how it's structured. I did expect that the original purpose was to discuss the book, like a book club. Getting any input at all from the author would be a total bonus. Then hearing that Tom may join in, my expectations shifted to thinking that people would be asking his explanation for certain comments or conclusions of his from the book. So for now, I'm not sure what to expect. Letting the thing grow organically, even just at first, would answer some of these questions. Doing it at RfM may or may not be the right place for such a process. We could try it here and see.

Mainly what I'd like is for Tom R not to feel obligated to join in any or all of the discussion, wherever it's held.

Too, I am sorry for those who wanted to get a book but couldn't due to lack of supply. It would be disappointing to have the discussion start without them getting the opportunity to join in. I'm not sure you can manage to restrict comments to only those who have read the chapter under discussion. Especially at RfM, how would you police that? Threads here just kind of do what they do.

I too hope the entire discussion isn't going to be very highbrow as I won't be able to keep up with a lot of structural theoretical this and that. So I'll have to sit with the kids who don't do that. :)

So how's that for not being too sure about any of it? Just my random thoughts for now.

I wouldn't mind helping out with some parts of this but can't make a big time commitment. Not sure then what I could help out with. Looking forward to the discussion though. (But put me down for favouring RfM or even an outside chat type thing, but not FB - I seriously hate that place).

Nightingale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I too hope the entire discussion isn't going to be
> very highbrow as I won't be able to keep up with a
> lot of structural theoretical this and that. So
> I'll have to sit with the kids who don't do that.
> :)

I feel the same way. I don't have much background in the concepts being discussed in this thread and in some parts of the book, but I'm hoping to learn something by lurking, at least at first.

I really hope we can all learn from and help one another. I may know some theory, but that's useless without understanding Mormonism -- like everybody here does already. So I'll probably have to make a fool of myself asking obvious questions or go away and read some more :)

RfM threads are usually capped by board Admin at around 30 posts, but, per Admin policy, they can be restarted on the board, even if on the same topic.

I bet it would be a big hit here. Plus, it would give you (via its combination of regular RfM contribtuors and interested RfM lurkers) another audience on a board which, in both Mormon and ex-Mormon circles, gets thousands upon thousands of hits per month.

In other words, Tom, IT'S FREE PUBLICITY!!!!! (Geezus, do I have to spell it out for you?)

Anyway, just a thought.

And don't get too philosphical with me on this. Remember, it's just a thought. :)



Edited 11 time(s). Last edit at 05/07/2013 05:14AM by steve benson.

I agree. Publicity is good! "Lurkers" are certainly welcome.

As for FB, I don't use it and know little-to-nothing about it. I'll show-up wherever I'm invited (and sometimes just because I want to weigh-in on what's being discussed).

"TT"

I also prefer RfM to Facebook if it's all the same.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/07/2013 06:48PM by steve benson.

Me too. Exciting, isn't it? I think you started this, didn't you? I think so. Anyway, you got me involved, and I'm thankful.

How come every time I see your name I smile? So great to be reunited after all this time. You are, and always have been my friend. And with that, my friend, I must go, before I can no longer see the keyboard.

Nightingale said:

> Letting the thing grow organically,
> even just at first, would answer some
> of these questions. Doing it at RfM may
> or may not be the right place for such
> a process. We could try it here and see.

Yes, I agree.

As far as a "live chat," I really don't picture this as a "live chat," I think merely giving a date/approximate time is more of a courtesy to Tom so he knows when to start checking RfM. Unlike some other people I know, I think he may have a real life and not be glued to discussion boards all day ;-).

Satan Claus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As far as a "live chat," I really don't picture
> this as a "live chat," I think merely giving a
> date/approximate time is more of a courtesy to Tom
> so he knows when to start checking RfM. Unlike
> some other people I know, I think he may have a
> real life and not be glued to discussion boards
> all day ;-).

Oh, I must have misunderstood. A certain date and time does not equate to "live chat", I see. :)

A specific date to start is a good idea. Still, I feel for those who have to wait til summer for their books. I'm already dug into the 'conversion' chapter/appendix as my curiosity was killing me.

Even though the book lives up to my preconceptions (that it isn't a beach book - easily tucked into a pocket for a day on sand and surf) as it does have a foreword, a foundational preface, the word 'methodology' in chapter 1, footnotes, appendices and references (!), as expected, it doesn't seem textbooky or beyond the capability of an RfMer to grasp. Still, I predict it will take me a while to digest and I will be a slow reader with it.

So I wouldn't be ready to contribute to a discussion tomorrow, especially if we're going to start with page 1, but I'd read a discussion on it any time.

Maybe an initial thread could just be our first impressions or a blurb about any chapter that first caught our interest (assuming others besides me delve into the middle of books rather than starting at chapter 1).

Whatever happens, it seems like it'll be fun. Sorry, Tom, to be enjoying your agonizing journey so much. I appreciate that you went through it, and that you chronicled it for countless readers. Already, glancing at your 'conversion' appendix, I've gone 'aha' in just the first paragraph. To help someone else see a different perspective in a useful way is truly a service. In that, for me, your book has already succeeded.

To document what elicited my aha so far: The five-part conversion that new members apparently go through (or are expected to) consisting of a belief that God lives, that Jesus Christ is His Son, that Joseph Smith was called to be the prophet of the restoration, that the current leader of the Mormon Church is a living prophet, and that the Mormon Church is the only true church, is not what was presented to me, an adult when I met Mormons and became friends and was intro'd to the missionaries (waves of them). Long after I had joined I heard from the MP's wife in a talk in SM what a "true testimony" was supposed to be about. Until then, I had wondered why so many adults and children went up to the mic in F&T monthly Sunday meetings to repeat the same words over and over. It was bizarre to me, who came from a Protestant and latterly an EV background, that people would have to even enunciate that "I know God exists". It's kind of like, well, duh, that's why we're sitting here in the first place. It's taken as a given and you move on from there - what about that, and so on. Or you could just be there (in Protestant circles) because you like the music or because your spouse or neighbour attends and you're keeping them company prior to all heading out for a big Sunday lunch. What I couldn't get in Mormonism was why stand up, 10, 20, 30 of you, every F&T and say the same words over and over and over and over.

Now, from a quick read-ahead in Tom's book, in just one paragraph, I see that the missionaries, and my Mormon friends, didn't even explain this basic Mormon thing to me. If they'd gone through those five apparently crucial points I would have been better informed than I ultimately was when I agreed to be baptized. That was because I wanted to get baptized, not because I believed in JS or any so-called living prophet and as a former JW, I'd had enough of the "one true church" bit for life. Instead of the so-called discussions, why don't they just go through the five-part "I believe" thing with prospective converts. That would separate wheat from chaff quite nicely, and quickly. Or at least it would let the convert know what they were signing onto.

I hesitate to even call myself a convert as I never converted to believing in that stuff. I didn't even "believe in" JS and I was upfront about that and the missionaries and bishop, and apparently SP, at the time all said it didn't matter. That is how inconsequential JS was during the discussions prior to my baptism.

I've had a very tough time all the yrs since in seeing or admitting that any of the missionaries I liked so much, or my Mormon friends, lied to me. I certainly still take responsibility for my own decisions about joining and ending up in the temple and etc. But. This whole conversion thing shouldn't be part of the "meat" that you don't trip over until after you're safely baptized and on their books. It should be a basic from the beginning.

I had questions and doubts from day one after I joined (well, before too, but they promised my questions would be answered after) and everyone just answered, "you've made commitments" like as if that revealed all, on its own, without any books or further info. I spent a lot of time asking "what commitments?" because I hadn't understood what the baptism was all about when it came to Mormonism. Double down, or triple even, on that after I went to the temple where, again, it had been promised that all would be revealed when it came to answering my questions. Uh, not so much. Now the "but you've been to the temple" answer, with shock that I still had questions, from the Mormon friends, the missionaries, the bishop, was triply disappointing and confusing. WHAT COMMITMENTS I again asked desperately as I sure didn't understand what the temple had been about. I was too busy worrying, sweating, and coping in the tiny dark hot rooms, with the stupid gown, the incessant instructions to stand, sit, and switch (the clothing around) and the forward march into room after room and drama after drama (real life play in the SLC temple). My strongest memory was of constant anxiety that the Really Old folks playing parts in the temple drama would fall down all those stairs. Up and down, back and forth, and what the heck was it all about. I had no idea. Except "Michael" was there a lot, doing what I had no clue.

My experience was that everyone, especially missionaries, pushed baptism as step 1, not conversion. Assuming that Mormonism was "Protestant" and wanting only to be baptized, I took the plunge four months after my TBM friends intro'd me to the mishies. And they told me that that was a very long time to wait.

I would have liked to know about the five-part conversion. And that you had to repeat it ad nauseum once a month, forever. You and all the others in your ward.

My true education (and enlightenment) about it all has come from RfM.

And a quick glance at Tom's book brought all that up. Sorry if it is posted in the wrong place. And if personal experiences aren't expected to be part of the discussion. In that case, consider this as a pre-discussion blurb.

But thanks. I appreciate the chance to explain all that. I can see now that they left out a lot in their efforts to get me to join, and to get me to stay when I wanted out from day 1. I used to completely reject the idea that anyone lied. But lately, I'm considering it. It would explain a lot.

But who wants to know that they were lied to. And that they believed the lies.

Especially me, a former JW. You'd think I'd have recognized the thing for what it was the instant my TBM acquaintance pulled out a BoM on me.

But no. I had to do it the hard way.

Twice.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/07/2013 12:23PM by Nightingale.

I just remembered that one of the missionaries I really liked and got along well with wrote on a blackboard for me once, after listening to a raft of my questions to which I couldn't find answers:

E=MC2

I asked what he meant and he said "In Mormonism, everything is relative".

That made us both fall over laughing at the time. I didn't realize he actually meant it literally.

There is a lot of wisdom in that. It still makes me laugh. But with tears too.

Nightingale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I My experience was that everyone, especially
>missionaries, pushed baptism as step 1, not
>conversion. Assuming that Mormonism was "Protestant"
>and wanting only to be baptized, I took the plunge
>four months after my TBM friends intro'd me to the
>mishies. And they told me that that was a very long
>time to wait.
>
>I would have liked to know about the five-part
>conversion. And that you had to repeat it ad nauseum
>once a month, forever. You and all the others in
>your ward.
>
>My true education (and enlightenment) about it
>all has come from RfM.
>
>And a quick glance at Tom's book brought all that
>up. Sorry if it is posted in the wrong place. And
>if personal experiences aren't expected to be part
>of the discussion. In that case, consider this as
>a pre-discussion blurb.

From past experience at RfM, I'd say that any thread
that grows beyond a dozen postings will lapse into
personal experiences, whether anybody starts out with
that intention or not.

Discussion of the book, its theory, its proposed
method, and its intended effects will just naturally
venture into individual human situations.

>
>"In Mormonism,
> everything is relative".
>

Perhaps so -- obedience appears to the glue that holds it
all together. No matter what that relative content may
be, it remains in place for the believer, so long as
obedience is adhered to. Reading a book like the one
Mr. Riskas has published is a step in the direction of
disobedience -- and thus, even if his methodology does
not apply perfectly to each theist who consults it, the
LDS believer takes that disobedient step, just by opening
the book's covers.

Although the presentation of Mormonism you experienced
may have been centered on baptism, at the expense of any
real doctrinal implantation, it still fits the basic
pattern laid down by Elder Walter Scott in 1827.

This "five dirst principles of the gospel" in conversion is:

1. Assure the potential convert that faith can begin with
a few beliefs that are generally assented to. If the
conversion prospect already holds these beliefs, then
this step can be processed very quickly. At some point
the potential convert agrees that Jesus is the Christ.

2. Convince the would-be convert that he/she needs to
repent of past wrongdoings or wrong beliefs. This step
can be as simple as the missionary saying a prayer to
that effect and the convert saying "amen."

3. Rush the convert into the water. Steps 1 and 2 may
have only taken a minute or two -- but baptism enrolls
the new believer into the Church. That is essential.

4. Convince the new member that a remission of sins has
taken place as a result of the baptism, and that he/she
is now ready to start a new life in the Church.

5. Convince the new member that he/she has received the
continual presence of an invisible Guiding Spirit which
will keep them on "the straight and narrow path" and
will enable the occurrence of miracles.

That very last clause was not original to Scott's conversion
method -- it was added by his junior companion, when Elder
Rigdon transferred the "first principles" into Mormonism.

Given that LDS basic program, your experience fits the
pattern, even if it did not conform exactly to what the
LDS leaders want you to think/believe/experience at first.

At what point does doubt typically enter into the mind of
the new convert (or the BIC member who is maturing)?

If the person was previously a theist (especially Christian)
that member will have already processed doubts. In fact,
such doubts may have led them to Mormonism, which pretty
much promises to get rid of believers' doubts.

But most beliefs naturally incorporate doubt into their
very structure/effect -- so doubt (even incipient, quiet,
subconscious doubt) becomes a dangling thread that a
practitioner like Mr. Riskas can take hold of.

It is essentially the same dangling thread that we RLDS
missionaries used to try and locate, and pull upon, in
order to begin to unravel Brighamism in a Mormon. I'm
fully familiar with that process -- or, at least with the
initial steps of its application.

UD

Hi Nightingale,
Suggest you read footnote 174, p. 319 of the book. Striker's work cited and summarized there might be of interest to you. I think it's powerful and very disturbing.

T

Susan/Eric for doing this - it is greatly appreciated!

Hi there TR. I looked on American Atheists and they have it listed, but it appears to be 500 units for 29.95. Does that sound strange?

celeste - it is listed that way because they are out of copies. It is currently unavailable for purchase from the publisher but they should be doing another printing this summer.

And we will set up a third board for the book discussion. More details to follow.

Awesome I was about to say, what happens when you get a bunch of analytical people together to try and figure out how to do something? You get tons of analysis and decisions are slow. I'm glad someone is solving the problem so elegantly, and it will be easier to discuss something there than try and shoehorn it onto the current RfM board, or try and force an alternative solution to work.

Never say never at RfM!

Fabulous news. I don't want to have to learn to do FB for it. The discussion will be challenging enough for me as it is. :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/07/2013 07:03PM by Nightingale.

Aw poop, posted this accidentally as a reply somewhere upthread.

Anyhow, thank you to Susan and Eric for making a third board!!