An Important and Personal Introduction

Susan, Thank you for taking the time and effort to set this up!

Tom, Thank you for taking the time to engage us concerning your book.

With this forum dedicated solely to the book, I think it's going to be a little more free-wheeling than originally though because we won't have to worry about poking around looking for Deconstructing Mormonism (DM) threads.

There is no rush to "get through this," so I personally am taking my time. I'm one of the ones who took Tom at his word and started from the very first page and have worked toward the back. I'm only on page 7 of the Foundational Preface, so those of you who are worried about going too slow or trying to keep up, don't worry.

Let's just start by tossing out any thoughts, questions, ideas, concerns, etc. anybody has regarding the first section, "Beyond the Betrayal of Doubt."
---------------------------

I personally have never had the "spiritual" feelings that so many Mormons talk about. Since I never had them, I am quite skeptical/cynical of those who claim they do. I have always felt they are either lying, elevating the natural emotions they have to something more than they really are, mislabeling natural emotions to something they aren't or I was spiritually retarded. Now that I have talked with others who have left Mormonism, and I trust them that when they tell me they had "spiritual" experiences, that at least some Mormons aren't lying.

I consider myself fairly rational, with no room for hocus-pocus. As I've been reading DM, I get the impression that Tom may be even more cold-hearted than myself! ;-) How can we reason with someone who bases their devotion on their emotions? Is it possible? (Maybe there is more later in the book that answers this?)

My TBM wife will only respond to discussions/questions/doubts/etc, by relying on her feelings. What is one to do with someone who simply will not apply the Outsider Test for Faith because they will not step outside the box? Are there any approaches that can work for someone who simply will not accept any of the four requirements on pp xxxii-xxxiii?

My question is personal and practical because of my wife, but I know of others who have the exact same issue with their spouse. I'm not seeking advice like, "Take it slow," or other commonsense things, but I guess a whole other method.

Can anyone help? Does anyone have the same "problem"?

>the Outsider Test for Faith

I guess this depends upon what faith is and what exactly
an outsider is. In practically ALL the instances in which
I lived in a community of like minded people, I was an
outsider. So, I'm uncertain of how to look at such groups
of people in any other way than observer-participant.

Never was this experience more personally impactful than
when I attended a Christian theological seminary for a few
years. By their definition a "Mormon" was an outsider in
all conceivable ways. At the same time as pursuing those
studies, I attended the nearby LDS branch, where I was
equally an outsider.

What does it mean to be an "insider?" I can only speculate,
having never been quite there, when it came to shared
professions in a community of faith.

UD

Uncle Dale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> What does it mean to be an "insider?" I can only
> speculate, having never been quite there,
> when it came to shared
> professions in a community of faith.
>
> UD


UD, For me, an "insider" is a personal thing - it's the belief system *you* are inside (or that is inside of you). You are inside the box of that belief. The OTF is looking at *your* belief system from outside your currently held beliefs. So if you are living in a predominately Muslim country and you are residing in a Buddhist monastery, but you are a practicing Wiccan because it's fun but you deep down believe in Judaism, it is the Judaism that needs the OTF. If you have an amalgam of beliefs, then the OTF needs to be performed on that. In my mind it doesn't matter if it's a theist-based belief system or atheist, you still perform the OTF. It's merely as chance to look critically at your beliefs.

Satan Claus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Uncle Dale Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > What does it mean to be an "insider?" I can
> only
> > speculate, having never been quite there,
> > when it came to shared
> > professions in a community of faith.
> >
> > UD
>
>
> UD, For me, an "insider" is a personal thing -
> it's the belief system *you* are inside (or that
> is inside of you). You are inside the box of that
> belief. The OTF is looking at *your* belief system
> from outside your currently held beliefs. So if
> you are living in a predominately Muslim country
> and you are residing in a Buddhist monastery, but
> you are a practicing Wiccan because it's fun but
> you deep down believe in Judaism, it is the
> Judaism that needs the OTF. If you have an amalgam
> of beliefs, then the OTF needs to be performed on
> that. In my mind it doesn't matter if it's a
> theist-based belief system or atheist, you still
> perform the OTF. It's merely as chance to look
> critically at your beliefs.

Yes, I understand that much.

Perhaps the main problem is that I have so few beliefs.
I believe that the sun will appear to rise in the east
tomorrow morning -- but I'm not sure about that. I
believe that putting two rocks into a pile of eight
rocks will always make a pile of ten. But, perhaps,
inside of a black hole, or during the first moments
of the Big Bang that would not necessarily be the case.

I suppose that I should move past beliefs and attempt
to look critically at faith.

Even when I've lived in communities where I could not
share all (or many) of those peoples' beliefs, it seemed
that I frequently found common ground with their faith.

Since all of that happened more or less by chance, without
my being an insider, I do not know how to examine that
phenomenon critically. There is probably a way to begin
the process, but I suppose that the Outsider Test of Faith
would have to be somehow adjusted to a different paradigm.

UD

The OTF seems fairly straightforward to me, as I understand it.

To be an "insider" is to be born, raised in, or converted to, and actively engaged in a particular theistic faith as a belief system and way of life.

To be an "outsider" is, technically speaking, to be someone who was not born, raised and active in any form of theism, and/or who, if once a convert to a particular theistic faith, and active in it, has since rejected it, and all theistic faith as a belief system and is now an Atheist.

Alternatively, an outsider is anyone who, though still an active member and believer a particular theistic faith or belief system and way of life (e.g. Mormonism), or on the fence with serious questions and dounts, can, with the presumption of a reasonable skepticism, critically examine the tenets of their own theistic or religious faith, as a belief system and way of life, "as if" an "outsider" in the above technical sense.

The alternative is admittedly much more difficult to do, but doable, I think, nonetheless, at least perhaps to the degree sufficient to produce some real doubt. The motivation to take such a test, however, is another thing altogether, and is often defended against, unless one already has real doubts and some remaining intellectual integrity. (See note 11 in the Introduction, as well as Loftus' most recent work.)

I wonder, Satan, if your wife might be willing to evaluate other religions with you, using the outsider Test? Maybe if she started to critically evaluate other religions -- and try some really exotic ones that don't bear any necessary relationship to Mormonism. Like Zoroastrianism (one of my favorites). And explore them without any mention of Mormonism.

Maybe this kind of activity would make her feel less threatened in a general sense, plus she'd be actively learning a new analytic technique in a "safe" context. And once she gets comfortable with the analytic technique, it might be easier to eventually ask her to consider it in relation to Mormonism.

In general, I really like John Loftus' book, too.

Just a thought.

DF, Great thought, but huh-uh, not my wife. She firmly holds to the monarchic meta-view. She has not a critical/reflective bone in her body when it comes to her religious beliefs. Open-and-shut case: Mormonism is it. The truth. The one and only. She would have *no* desire to discuss another religion.

I think. I've been wrong on many other things and she could surprise me, but I just don't see it happening. At this moment religion is kind of the elephant in our house. I will certainly look for opportunities. That's why I'm wondering in my other question about an issue that many TBMs have - I could toss out the idea and then see what happens. Maybe. I've found that it is better for me to let *her* bring the subject up.

Well, sorry I can't help you with the TBM thing. Sounds like you'll get some useful insights here.

Though your wife *must* be curious about what turned you....

And sorry you have an elephant in your house. They're voracious creatures. Hide the Lucky Charms!

Darkfem Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Though your wife *must* be curious about what
> turned you....
>


No, I think she is sad. Angry. Disappointed. Worried.

I told her why I stopped believing: "I never had a spiritual confirmation of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, the church, etc. although I tried mightily for 20+ adult years to have a confirmation." (I don't know if you've read Appendix A in DM yet, but that is the exact experience I was hoping for. I believe that is what all Mormons aspire to. But, hell, I'd have taken something far less than the grand experience - just a little whisper.) I told her that I felt like a hypocrite professing my knowledge/belief Sunday after Sunday when in fact I had no such knowledge/belief (in the Church, you are taught that to gain the kind of testimony/experience Tom received, you should profess you know the truth until you get the truth {I can't remember which page Tom alludes to this}). So she knows exactly *what* brought me to remove myself. I believe I am one of the minority who hasn't received a spiritual witness, and most people leave for historical/doctrinal/philosophical reasons. I had all those as well for many years, but I was good at believing the apologists and shelving the issues.

Sorry, that was a bit more autobiographical than I intended. But I think it still fits within the purview of DM.

Yes, that elephant is quickly eating us out of house and home, although it seems to prefer Cocoa Puffs. :-)

I'm just wondering if I were to start fishing for a TBM's doubts because I really want them to apply the Outsider's Test for Faith, and I needed the most enticing bait because I only have one or two attempts before they shutdown, what is a doubt that *most* TBMs would admit that they have about LDS theology (as opposed to, say, historical doubts)?

The Outsider Test of Faith is one of the most powerful devised ideas I have ever read.

Now then, I agree with Satan (who would have EVER thought I'd say THAT?!? GRIN!).....er, that is Satan Claus here, there is no need to rush through, and I also am intending on rewording some of the ideas Tom put in his book, and exploring it in detail with other texts that I find relevant to what Tom has said and noted. I think Tom's view of Millet's putting doubts on a shelf, and continuing in faith is powerful. I will explore more on this in a bit with you all.

I had already come to wonder about the reality of what is termed "spiritual" in the first place. I can't help but think that this is a smoke-screen to cover over the lack of actual physical evidence of whatever theological assertions are made about God, church, salvation, miracles, etc.
The other problem that I have discerned (perhaps incorrectly) is that Joseph Smith said spirit is simply refined matter (how refined? Down to atoms? Sub-atomic particles? science has taken physical matter down to as small as is literally POSSIBLE, below it is simply quantum probability of possibility of matter appearing from the quantum soup), so something "spiritual" is simply refined physical anyway, and if it is physical, then it is firmly, squarely in the realm of science which means evidence needs to be seen, gathered, discussed, and analyzed. "Spiritual" does nothing but invoke the mind numbing and worthless faith card with a different word is all it appears to me.

backyardprofessor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I had already come to wonder about the reality of
> what is termed "spiritual"
...

Long ago it occurred to me that the term "spiritual experience"
had no useful meaning, outside of the participants themselves.

It is too over-used. Too vague. Too subjective.

That is not to say that some people don't make profound changes
in their lives following such events. I'm sure that much
at least can be true.

But, trying to prove a theophany or an epiphany? That's
a hard sell. Not to get too graphic here, but I could
attempt to describe the most ecstatic intimate encounter
imaginable, only to have the other participant later
confess that it meant nothing -- was merely "faking it."
How does my rational mind not wonder if my own experience was
not equally "nothing?" Merely chemical reactions in the brain?

More could be said, but I'll not attempt to further muddy
the essential waters with talk of transcendence.

UD

BYP, I always try and put the word "spiritual" in quotes for two reasons - I have no personal concept of what it means, and I believe people mostly delude themselves about their so-called "spiritual" experiences.

D&C 131:7-8
7 There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; 8 We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.

This is an interesting idea that you stated that if Joseph Smith claimed that spirit is matter, and science deals with matter, one should certainly be able to use the scientific method to analyze and discuss it. (But, as you well know, the apologist will merely point out the caveat that it "can only be discerned by purer eyes [which won't happen until] our bodies are purified.") Still, there might be a kernal of something here to work with.

O.K., on the very first page of the chapter "Beyond the Betrayal of Doubt" (xvi) Tom says that the "familiar God talk" about God being our parent(s), everyone our brothers and sisters, and Jesus the Elder Brother, etc. really does not give us any actual cognitive information on the kind of beings these supposedly are, etc. I just am working on some videos on Charles R. Harrell's book "This is My Doctrine" on the history of the development of LDS theology, and he notes (I don't have it right in front of me at the moment, ARGH!) that there is simply nothing in the Old Testament that has this kind of thinking or theological reflection as a real reality. It is ambiguously discussed in the New Testament, and it is a Mormon development in Joseph Smith's day is where it gathered steam.

Theologically, the idea is not justified by an appeal to the scriptures as such. And he kind of notes what Tom said that this kind of talk gives comfort (but no knowledge actually of any kind of reality), it makes one fell like there is a spiritual confirmation which is, if I am reading the neuroscientists accurately, simply in our own minds. Yes I went and did the stupid thing and bought about 10 books of the neuroscientists with my last paycheck, and the wife made me sleep on the couch....outside! GRIN!

My point in all this is that between Tom's and Harrell's analysis this idea that they know what they are talking about is all assumed, not actually known. What fascinates me is how Tom systematically shows this from a philosophical stance (as well as some of the scriptural attempts at eisegesis - that is reading one's own beliefs back onto the Bible) and Harrell does the same thing from the various scriptures, but he also shows a historical context that shows how things like this arose in Mormonism. THis is the context that Harrell includes that the church has taken out of its manuals in Priesthood and Sunday School meetings. Ironic no?

BYP, Regarding God-talk, Tom said (xvi) that this kind of talk "speak[s] comfort, security, and apparent sense to the human mind...[which] might seem to unquestioning believers to be comprehensive, internally coherent and wonderfully consistent with what they do on a day-to-day basis.... They tacitly...behave as if they actually know what they are talking about when referring to their god or some aspect of it, or to what their god really wants, expects, or thinks."

It is my experience that most TBMs are actually fairly clueless concerning the theology of their religion. They have the rules and regulations down pretty well so that they know how they "should" behave, but if you ask them to try and link that behavior to a systematic theology underpinning that behavior, that can't do it. And then they will proclaim that such things are "unimportant" or are the "mysteries" and all will be revealed later. However, aren't those the very things that they should know? This is blind obedience. Regardless of what the leaders say, doing, without know why, is blind obedience. Have a "spiritual confirmation" that, "Oh, yeah, I should do that," is still blind obedience because they have no clue *why* they are doing it. Isn't this the *very* thing Joseph Smith was supposedly bringing to the earth by establishing a prophet, seer, translator and revelator? What *exactly* should this man on earth be prophesying, seeing, translating and revealing if not the very nature of their belief system?

BYP, Joseph seemed to set it up, Brigham Young seemed to be a worthy student and practitioner, but it petered out pretty quickly thereafter when the things that were being prophesied, seen and revealed (hmmm...whatever happened to the translating?) were too bogus to believe.

Hey everybody.

Here's something I have been thinking about related to this first chapter.

I like the way Tom explains how believers betray their doubt in all sorts of ways-- linguistic, behavioral and psychological. In the end, and please correct me if I'm wrong, Tom basically asserts that every statement of belief is a betrayal of doubt. Which makes total sense to me.

Okay, so by claiming that it is impossible to make an assertion of belief without betraying one's doubt, we can see how doubt, then, is constituent of belief.

That may work out linguistically and philosophically, but it seems to me that believers do not subjectively experience assertions of belief this way. I doubt Satan's wife would, eh? Most in my experience would not be willing to accept that they are betraying doubt by professing belief ... because they somehow "feel" its truth. Their belief is constitutive of their subjective reality.

In my experience many true believers would feel hurt and offended to be told that they are linguistically unable to assert belief without also alluding to doubt. They would also say I was wrong.

So, and this is phrased more provocatively than it's meant: does Tom not implement the same kind of authoritarian schema he accuses Mormons of using when he claims to represent the truth of believers more accurately than believers themselves do?

Darkfem Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>...Tom basically
> asserts that every statement of belief is a
> betrayal of doubt. Which makes total sense to me.
>

I can certainly see it that way myself.

In another posting I said that I believe that the sun
will appear to rise in the east tomorrow morning --
but that I was not sure about that.

Maybe something will happen to the planet to prevent that.
Maybe my entire life has been lived as an illusion and
there is no sun. I'd give the latter conclusion less
than a billionth of 1% chance of being true. But I must
confess that such a doubt has at least crossed my mind.

As I see it, things take a bad turn for the worse when
I must conform to a society in which that belief is
absolute -- in which I'm told that Apollo carries the
sun across the sky, from east to west, and since Apollo
is perfect and immortal, the sun will always so travel.

Being born into such a community -- or, perhaps marrying
into it -- or (horrors!) converting to become a member,
is where doubt gets betrayed on a systematic basis. How
to escape from that limited (and untrue) belief system?

One beginning path might be to conclude that Apollo is
a fiction, but that there is an element of fact in the
Apollo myth -- in other words, to try and view the
belief as an imperfect and unreliable one, which
nevertheless can be improved upon, and the old version
relegated to the mythology books.

This path can be a dangerous one, when others in the society
declare it blasphemous and worthy of severe punishment.
But, for me at least, it is a viable beginning.

UD

UD,

“There is a tacit belief underneath each and every regressive fantasy or superstitious, wish-based belief known to man: a belief that *anything* is possible…It is, as I see it, at the heart of both our expansive scope of imagination and our collective stupidity, gullibility, and epistemic irresponsibility as a species. It is, moreover, asserted defensively in justifying the indefensible and absurd belief in the actual existence of spirits, angels, demons and gods.” (xxi, fn 3)

Kerry (BackyardProfessor) said in the other thread (I think) that most apologists approach Mormonism from the "possibility" stance instead of the "probability" stance. Maybe that's what you are doing? Yes, it's "possible" that the sun won't "rise" tomorrow, but what is the probability?

You said:

> Maybe something will happen to the planet to prevent that.
> Maybe my entire life has been lived as an illusion and
> there is no sun. I'd give the latter conclusion less
> than a billionth of 1% chance of being true. But I must
> confess that such a doubt has at least crossed my mind.

You say it has "crossed your mind," so I'll assume that is it, just crossed, not set moved in and set up house. Wouldn't that be irrational to spend much of one's time worrying about something with such low odds? Now if it is just an academic exercise, meh, whatever.

You said:

> As I see it, things take a bad turn for the worse when
> I must conform to a society in which that belief is
> absolute -- in which I'm told that Apollo carries the
> sun across the sky, from east to west, and since Apollo
> is perfect and immortal, the sun will always so travel.

As Riskas says on (xxvi, fn 6), "[K]nowledge is only provisionally true, given, again, the fact of human fallibilism. So there is no such thing as 'absolute truth.'"

There is no Apollo. There is no guarantee of anything (except death, taxes, etc.). There are only degrees of probability.

Satan Claus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...
> Kerry (BackyardProfessor) said in the other thread
> (I think) that most apologists approach Mormonism
> from the "possibility" stance instead of the
> "probability" stance. Maybe that's what you are
> doing?

I gave up being an RLDS apologist back about a decade
and a half ago -- so any residual methodology is more by
habit than by design. I'm always interested in possibilities.
A major earthquake just hit the Mariana Islands, where
my retirement account is housed in the local Bank of
Guam offices. Am I interested in the possibility that
my monthly checks from Saipan will cease? Yes, indeed.
Do I dwell upon those probabilities? Not so much. There
are other matters to keep me busy.

> Yes, it's "possible" that the sun won't
> "rise" tomorrow, but what is the probability?

The probability that my belief is wrong, and needs to
be abandoned? I'm not sure. I didn't see the Saipan
earthquake coming. I'd have to be a specialized scientist
to have anticipated that with any degree of probability.
Will something terrible happen to the very fabric of
space, to remove the sun before tomorrow's hour arrives?
Maybe if I were a cosmologist researching the theorized
"Big Rip," I could make some meaningful prediction. But
given such a catastrophe, there would be no earth to
miss the extinguished solar candle. So, for all purposes,
the probability of my seeing that happen is zero.

The point I'd like to make, is that I have the freedom to
both believe in the sun rising tomorrow and the freedom
to doubt that it will occur. There is no Inquisition
inspecting my every published word, ready to step in and
inflict punishment for my exercising belief or doubt.


>
> You said:
>
> > Maybe something will happen to the planet to
> > prevent that. Maybe my entire life has been lived
> > as an illusion and there is no sun. I'd give the
> > latter conclusion less than a billionth of 1% chance
> > of being true. But I must confess that such a doubt
> > has at least crossed my mind.
>
> You say it has "crossed your mind," so I'll assume
> that is it, just crossed, not set moved in and set
> up house. Wouldn't that be irrational to spend
> much of one's time worrying about something with
> such low odds? Now if it is just an academic
> exercise, meh, whatever.
>

The problem I have encountered, is in communicating my
thoughts on such subjects, to some other person, who
demands proof that anything I am discussing is real,
valid, or worthy of any serious conversation. How do
I go about proving those "low odds" (or, even the converse)
to a person who demands empirical verification outside
my range of perception and interpretation? In such situations
I generally just admit defeat and give up. But those are
also the times that I question "what is real?"

Bad enough when just a single intelligent correspondent
demands such proof -- worse yet, when more chime in.


> You said:
>
> > As I see it, things take a bad turn for the
> > worse when I must conform to a society in which
> > that belief is absolute -- in which I'm told that
> > Apollo carries the sun across the sky, from east
> > to west, and since Apollo is perfect and immortal,
> > the sun will always so travel.
>
> As Riskas says on (xxvi, fn 6), "nowledge is only
> provisionally true, given, again, the fact of
> human fallibilism. So there is no such thing as
> 'absolute truth.'"
>
> There is no Apollo. There is no guarantee of
> anything (except death, taxes, etc.). There are
> only degrees of probability.

That doesn't remove the pressure of living in a society
where supposed absolutes are imposed upon the individual,
perhaps from childhood on.

Suppose that such a society's leaders and enforcers
demanded acceptance and profession of the absolute fact
that irrevocable death occurs with ceasing of brain wave
activity, and that any post-death resuscitation amounts to
witchcraft, and is punishable by burning at the stake? How
does the dissenting individual operate within such limits?

In the modern western world, we might advise him to move
elsewhere. But if he is a peasant in the tribal region of
western Pakistan, such advice would be worthless. He must
find the answer inside of his own mind, I'd say.

UD

Hello All,

First of all, what is a "TBM"? I've been racking my brain on this and can't for the life of me figure it out.

Second, I will attempt to later reply to those posts that jumpe out at me in some way, which is probably how I'll approach my involvement when I'm not asked a specific question.

Where the proverbial "rubber hits the road" for me in this Introduction is in (a) realizing the crucial importance of "real" doubt (note 1) and the ways in which such doubts are betrayed either by suppression and denial, or by inadvertant exposure, and (b) appreciating how one might therapeutically attend to such doubts once they are acknowledged an accepted as the asset they are.

In both of these pragmatic outcomes the issue seems to be, for many still in the faith to some degree, the desire and will to personalize a and b, and not merely intellectually acknowledge them in principle, or the abstract. Reflection is no substitute for hard, analytical work on one's own "faith" (and explicit or tacit beliefs) when engaging in the OTF.

Peck's "dilemma" (which he personally suffered from as a Christian psychotherapist) afflicts all of us in some way throughout our lives in virtue of our humanity. For those theists or "spiritualists" who do not consider themselves "in a box," however, the "box" is regarded as a "(Mighty) Fortress," a good thing that "defends" them from the "wiles of the devil" (or, perhaps in "spiritualis-speak", the "dark energy" or "negative auras" of "dark spirits" or the "unenlightened" worldly masses).

So, how does one come to regard their "World-View" or explicit or tacit "control beliefs" as a limiting and suffocating "box" he or she is "trapped" in, and how can one get out of such a box? And why should anyone really care if others (particularly family and loved ones) are so entrapped?

More specifically, from what privileged view point, if any, can any of us come to legitimately believe or assert, for example, that we, as Atheists or Agnostics, are not the ones trapped in a box and theistic believers or spiritualists are? By assuming such a stance are we not, as perhaps self-regarded "Free Thinkers" in fact trapped ourselves in the Platonic, Cartesian, Kantian "boxes" that are as language-dependent and therefore confining as the idealogical, theological thinking they foster and support.

These questions are, to me, crucial and lay at the heart of the pragmatic, analytical, dialogic (i.e. Socratic) decontruction and justiciation of Mormonism and all theistic faiths I espouse in the book. There is, from my perspective, no Archimedian Point from "somewhere" (or "nowhere") by which anyone can infallibly determine who (or what) is right or wrong morally, or what statements or beliefs can be absolutely and decisively regarded as"True" of "False."

Once we accept the view, if we do, that our thoughts, language and beliefs do not represent or mirror ("correspond" to) reality -- or "things as they really are" -- and that, therefore, knowledge about "reality" for us is not concept and language independent, we will, I think, take the first important step of allowing "real" doubt to take root.

Such doubt for theists constitutes what Nielsen referred to in his Foreword as the "wolves of disbelief," an apt metaphor in my case, and I suspect in others as well who are participating in this forum and reading my book.

In my experience, the "bites" from such wolves -- when of the nature of those inflicted by the "wolves" of personal crisis, disenchantment, and/or analysis and assessment offered, in part, in DM and, for me, in Kai's books (1982, 1996, 2001, 2006) -- are usually, ultimately fatal to faith in all gods for all who are truly "bitten".

Thoughts?

This brings me to SC's personal dilemma, if I may...

SC, my guess (and it is at most a guess informed only by personal experience, and my acceptance as a psychologist that, to quote Carl Rogers, "That which is most personal is most universal") is that your good wife has likely been "bitten" by the the wolves of your disbelief -- i.e. by your own real doubts -- and is likely suffering and resisting the spread of infection in her own way.

This suggests, if my guess has any merit, that your wife is in a terrible, "either-or" double-bind; a bind that is created and reinforced by the conditioning and indoctrination she likely sufferred in her Mormon family of origin, if she was born and raised in the faith, and throughout her life as a "faithful Mormon," if she is. This "double-bind" pits the good of the "marriage" bond against the imperative of remaining "true to God and the faith."

Further, it is also likely that, appearances and denials to the contrary notwithstanding, her resistance -- perhaps in the form of a "reaction formation" (e.g. an increase or steadfastness in her religious devotion) -- very well might be, perhaps among other indicators, a betrayal of her own real doubts.

In any case, sometimes it's best to hold the tension and let our unspoken (or spoken) doubts do their natural work. Alternatively, seeking to be understood, instead of seeking to understand (or seeking to convince), can at times facilitate the openness needed to promote openness, and with it, make room for real doubt.

Consider, for example, the following hypothetical conversation in this regard:

"Have you ever wondered what my real doubts are that have led to my abandonment of the faith (or inactivity)?"

"No, but I think I know what they are."

"Would you please share with me, in your words, what you think they are so I know you truly understand? I really need to know that you at least understand."

"I'd rather not."

"I'm struggling to understand why you won't at least share your understanding of my doubts with me. Will you please help me understand why you won't?"

What would any of you make of such a conversation? How does it make room for real doubt, if it does?


********

Atheism or rejection of Mormonism in a "Mormon marriage" where one spouse is faithful to the Church typically doesn't end well in my experience. As an aside, this is one of the reasons I consider the Mormon faith to be a toxic belief system and social system, as I discuss in some depth in Ch. 8, and also in the Epilogue and PPS.

Even so, where there is greater (or at least equal) commitment to the marriage than to the faith, there is room for healing. The above hypothetical refusal of one spouse to deeply understand the real doubts and crisis of faith of the other seems to indicate the need for non-LDS, non-religious marriage counseling to independently evaluate and work on the marriage. Otherwise, it will likely die a slow death, and might fail anyway.

Reactions?


T

Tom,

Do you believe there are people who are better off left with their faith?

As a man who has been married to a TBM wife for a very long time, I firmly beieve that my wife needs to believe and is a better person for it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/14/2013 08:17PM by internetmormon.

No I do not. We don't need to believe in gods. We need to individuate and learn to come to terms with our mortality.

internetmormon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...
>
> Do you believe there are people who are better off
> left with their faith?
>

What an interesting question!

Probably there are two ways to approach an answer --
as a theorist and as a pragmatist.

Somebody with very good reasoning at their command may
conclude that the Buddhist residents in remote sub-Tibetan
villages near my old home in the Himalayas would be far
better off if they were relieved of their religion.

In theory that might seem all good and well.

But, practically, what would be the result? In at least a
few cases I'm aware of, the results can be extrapolated
from the situation of the inhabitants of neighboring
animist villages. In the latter remote enclaves, the
people do not have schools, do not have reading and
writing, do not have meaningful contact with the outside
world -- are ignorant, poverty-stricken, suspicious and
hostile. Their lives are short and brutal. The closest
thing they have to a unifying element would be a visiting
Bon priest who wards off the neighboring Buddhists.

Remove Buddhism from those mountain villages and I seriously
think it would set back the level of society there two or
three thousand years.

And, from a practical viewpoint, how would anybody even
begin such a task? Their religion is so interwoven with
their culture that to destroy one would destroy the other.

So, regardless of what the theorist might conclude, I
believe that the pragmatist would just leave well enough alone.

UD

Uncle Dale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...
>
> And, from a practical viewpoint, how would anybody
> even begin such a task?
>...

I might add that I saw some evidence of how it could be
done. A hundred kilometers or so to the north, across the
border, the Chinese had set up re-education camps during
the Great Cultural Revolution. These were for the plateau
dwellers, not exactly the mountain people I knew. But a
few refugees managed to escape and flee south to Nepal.

The Han Chinese had imposed their culture and language
upon the Tibetans in the camps. Buddhism was forbidden
and dialectical materialism was taught in its place.
So the camp residents had only to exchange one form of
atheism for another -- but the innovation obviously
shattered their culture. The camp residents were moved
to communal farms, but life there was 100% Han Chinese
communist culture.

So, the experiment has been tried, if anybody is interested
in researching the results of religious deconstruction.

UD

This question can also be answered from a socio-psychological perspective, I think.

My answer to the question was in the context of the question asked of me, i.e. theistic religions.

Buddhism arguably has some socio-psychological merit, as I implicitly embrace in the Epilogue as an alternative to theism.

So Tom, I have a question for you. I have seen comments to the effect that your reliance on Kai Nielsen's work is a detriment to your book. I have also seen ideas floating around about what potential responses to your book there will be, which makes for fun gossipy guessing reading, to be sure.

My question is, Did Kai Nielsen's philosophical stances on things help you analyze the inner doctrines of Mormonism as it were? Such as the idea of the base reality of all beings being intelligences, and asking what are they, and what are spirits, and how exactly does spirit birth occur? Is there any objective reality which we can see for these to be justifiable truth? Etc. I am asking do you feel that Nielsen's approach was relevant to you digging down into the nitty gritty as it were of Mormonism foundation doctrines?
I haven't read Nielsen's materials, yet, but I will, but I am under the impression that he has had nothing to say about Mormonism, and what you did was basically take his ground as it were...... his ground of argument and apply it yourself to Mormonism and hence your doconstruction.
Are the arguments against the Mormon views yours or Nielsen's? I am asking in a nutshell.

Oh and one more question I have been DYING to ask.........WHO was the unnamed source you used on p. 93? Usually that kind of thing in a book just turns me off big time. But the idea itself is what kept me reading the next few pages in the few minutes I had when I first purchased your book. I thought the actual philosophical and logical view that unnamed source presented was really interesting! I am STILL pondering on it and reading things about infinity now just to make sure I grasp the essence of the argument.

Kerry,

I really enjoyed that quote also and while it would be nice if it were attributed, it still is an interesting question that most LDS cannot answer. When I have tried to pin people down on that one usually it results in God (Elohim) as a unique individual who creates the god (and planet) referenced. This, of course, is a problem. (Orson Pratt tried to solve it with his idea of divine attributes but Brigham, not understanding why it was necessary, made Orson retract it.)

There was no disclosed source and I couldn't find one. I think the ideas stand or fall on there own merit though.

They are mine, using the same analytical approach that Nielsen and others use, and that has been in use since Socrates, though not with the same theoretical underpinnings. ;)

Kai's work was very therapeutic for me after my deconversion, and I adopted it in my own way to deconstruct Mormonism.

Yes, and to think that each of these gods, formerly humans were on other planets......but we know that man evolved in his present physical features here on this earth. Gould is realistically correct to say if we rewound the tape and let evolution take over again from billions of years back, it would NOT end up the same as we find right now. To think that the same human type body evolved on all those other worlds back into time when the gods were men? That just is simply silly and unavailable for confirmation. And the quote appears to me to be correct, man is nowhere taken into account. God had to have a man's form, but man had to be made in God's form, which was a man's form, fro intelligent spirits, etc. The convoluted logic is astonishing! There is no allowance in the circular eternal progress for the origin or beginning of the process.
We also are to understand, based on our very best efforts and understanding of our universe, that it began in the Big Bang. It had a beginning, it has not been eternal. There is no actual physical infinity in reality. True, math has the infinities, but those aren't physically something we can point to and say "see, that is infinite." As the quote says, the problem of getting from eternal intelligences to "birthed spirits" to actual physical bodies, then to exalted gods is that there is no opening in which the eternal spirits first enter the process, because there is no eternally existing physical man or God to be the first cause." I mean that is startling!

backyardprofessor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, and to think that each of these gods,
> formerly humans were on other planets......but we
> know that man evolved in his present physical
> features here on this earth. ...


This particular question was bothersome enough that I asked
my Reorganized LDS superiors, back in the 1970s, whether or
not Joseph Smith, jr. and our other early leaders taught
ex cathedra, that human beings and Eloheim/Jehovah/Satan
were all of the exact same species. The answer I received
was that "this appears to be the case" but that the doctrine
was non-canonical. Which didn't make me very happy.
N
That was before Science knew so many details about human
genetics, and just how little actually separates us from
bonobos and chimps. The major difference appears to lie
in the mutation of a single gene, or gene set. Prior to
that change our ancestors probably were able to successfully
mate with the apes' ancestors.

And yet, I was told in Sunday school that Eloheim physically
mated with a lady to produce important offspring. If I could
have asked then, my question would have been: "Why did
God's genetics differ from those of apes, precisely in the
same way that Mary's did?" Butbeven then I knew the answer
and would not have pushed the absurdity of the doctrine too
hard. It wouldn't have been a polite thing to do in that class.

UD

Yes Unka Dale! And whether one likes it or not, the mythicists have some powerful points on this regard about the whole thing simply being invented myth with no actual Jesus ever existing. I am reading them as well and am quite interested in seeing their views and how they analyze things. Like him or hate him, Earl Doherty and Robert M. Price are very well educated in these things.

Tom,

I didn't see anyone answer your question directly (unless I missed it). TBM stands for True Blue Mormon, that is to signify they belive in the church hook, line, and sinker.

At the top of the Recovery Board there is a link to a list of most of the abbreviations that you might encounter.

Also, I asked this on another thread but I will ask it here since you are more likely to see it here. Any chance this book will be available on Kindle or Nook?



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/15/2013 12:35PM by phoebe64.

Who among those who have read the entire Introduction, if any, would be interested in putting it in a "nut-shell" in terms of its content, purpose and utility?

Additionally, why, if at all, do those of you who have done the reading consider, if you do, that the Introduction is "Important," and what personal takeaways, if any, do you have from reading it?

Finally, for now, what, if anything, in what you're read in the Introduction, has been unclear, questionable, troublesome or helpful to you personally, and in what way(s)?

I ask these questions certainly not to test your reading, but out of genuine curiosity and interest as the book's author, and out of a desire to be helpful, if I can, in making your reading and participation personally worthwhile. This forum will benefit me as well as, hopefully, those of you who choose to read the book and participate.

Thanks.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/16/2013 02:18PM by tomriskas.

tomriskas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

<snip>

> what personal takeaways, if any, do you have
> from reading it?

Unfortunately the book isn't with at the moment, but two things that really stand out for me:

1) Millet's reasons for doubt and your response concerning them.
2) Outsider Test for Faith.

When I get home I'll give a few more details and respond to the rest of the questions.