Mormon stories 852-857

Discussions about negotiating relationships between faithful LDS believers and the apostates who love them. This applies in particular to mixed-faith marriages, but relations with children, parents, siblings, friends, and ward members is very welcome.
Post Reply
User avatar
FiveFingerMnemonic
Posts: 1484
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 2:50 pm
Contact:

Mormon stories 852-857

Post by FiveFingerMnemonic » Fri Jan 26, 2018 10:21 am

I found this particular interview very close to my own experience in many ways, except for the end results. So many lessons learned.

www.mormonstories.org/family-ties/

User avatar
MerrieMiss
Posts: 580
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 9:03 pm

Re: Mormon stories 852-857

Post by MerrieMiss » Tue Jan 30, 2018 5:56 pm

That was a long one to get through. I'd be curious to know how you felt it related to your own situation.

I could relate to the first two parts, not so much the rest, and I found the end rather frustrating.

I began my FC about 7-8 years ago, before it was something printed about in LDSLiving, before the essays, and it was a really slow burn. Things just didn't add up and the BoA was the nail in the coffin. So I could relate to Doug on that. It seems more recent disaffected mormons move far more quickly into believe/not believe territory.

I'm still in the closet, so I can't say I can relate to any of the rest of it, except most of my family is ex or NOM and even though my husband doesn't know I don't believe, he knows something is wrong. When we're with my family it's also like we're all talking in subtext where we are communicating on two levels, one for him and one for everyone else. My husband is on the outside (he doesn't quite realize it) and that makes me feel bad sometimes, so I can see how the one woman felt very alone knowing her husband's family could talk about this stuff and she had no one.

I was frustrated because I felt like in the last part when John Dehlin asked them some really poignant questions, the answers were glossed over as if they were obvious or didn't matter: How can you be moral without religion? How do you decide morality? How do you find meaning in life? I'm not saying I believe one has to have religion/mormonism to answer these questions, but the answers were flat to me: "Because I am a good person. Just because I am good. Who needs a meaning for life?" Perhaps I am being too rough on the individuals, but these are real questions people struggle with and I didn't feel like their answers were sufficient. Philosophers have a lot to say on these issues, and all they had was, "Just because."

I almost didn't finish the last thirty minutes because it was frustrating me to hear such simplistic answers, but then they began to speak about taking off garments and drinking and expressing the difficulty of making these decisions, so maybe John Dehlin was asking the questions wrong. Maybe they were trying to keep things short(?!), maybe none of the four ever really considered the questions before and were taken unaware. I don't know.

I did appreciate the tips they gave for talking to people, family, friends, church members, etc. about not believing anymore.

User avatar
slavereeno
Posts: 1247
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:30 am
Location: QC, AZ

Re: Mormon stories 852-857

Post by slavereeno » Tue Jan 30, 2018 6:13 pm

MerrieMiss wrote:
Tue Jan 30, 2018 5:56 pm
I was frustrated because I felt like in the last part when John Dehlin asked them some really poignant questions, the answers were glossed over as if they were obvious or didn't matter: How can you be moral without religion? How do you decide morality? How do you find meaning in life? I'm not saying I believe one has to have religion/mormonism to answer these questions, but the answers were flat to me: "Because I am a good person. Just because I am good. Who needs a meaning for life?" Perhaps I am being too rough on the individuals, but these are real questions people struggle with and I didn't feel like their answers were sufficient. Philosophers have a lot to say on these issues, and all they had was, "Just because."
This would frustrate me as well. Its one of those things I still don't have a good answer for to give to DW. She would like some guidance on teaching morality and right now where else but religion to get it? I can cite a bunch of different sources maybe and go it individually, I would like that. But the "product" the church sells is compelling to her, morality all correlated and taught consistently worldwide. The church's mis-deeds are worth the price to some.

User avatar
alas
Posts: 2357
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:10 pm

Re: Mormon stories 852-857

Post by alas » Tue Jan 30, 2018 8:26 pm

slavereeno wrote:
Tue Jan 30, 2018 6:13 pm
MerrieMiss wrote:
Tue Jan 30, 2018 5:56 pm
I was frustrated because I felt like in the last part when John Dehlin asked them some really poignant questions, the answers were glossed over as if they were obvious or didn't matter: How can you be moral without religion? How do you decide morality? How do you find meaning in life? I'm not saying I believe one has to have religion/mormonism to answer these questions, but the answers were flat to me: "Because I am a good person. Just because I am good. Who needs a meaning for life?" Perhaps I am being too rough on the individuals, but these are real questions people struggle with and I didn't feel like their answers were sufficient. Philosophers have a lot to say on these issues, and all they had was, "Just because."
This would frustrate me as well. Its one of those things I still don't have a good answer for to give to DW. She would like some guidance on teaching morality and right now where else but religion to get it? I can cite a bunch of different sources maybe and go it individually, I would like that. But the "product" the church sells is compelling to her, morality all correlated and taught consistently worldwide. The church's mis-deeds are worth the price to some.
I think those answers are really exactly that simple. It is just that religion has laid claim to human morality, and you have to get out of religious thinking to realize that religion only claims to own morality, but doesn't. Morality was around long before religion and will be around long after. Look at it from the perspective of evolutionary psychology. Those human bands that did not have morality died off because they had infighting, murder, theft. A human band has enough trouble surviving in a paleo environment without killing each other. So, humans have some morality that is instinctive (even dogs and wolves have an inborn sense of fair play, and get very upset if treated unfairly, or even watching another being treated unfairly) psychologists have tested infants too young to have learned "morality" and they recognize unfairness and hurting others and essentially they have an instinctive morality. Some better than others, just like some humans have other traits on a spectrum. And then Humans reinforce that instinctive morality with culture, thus we developed religion.

And really, meaning of life. Read Victor Frankl. He had a whole therapy based in helping people find their personal purpose. We each find our own purpose in life, because any other kind really has no meaning. Religion offers a purpose that is not for this life, but for the next life. Ask anyone and religion or not, the reason they give as the purpose for life is going to be personal, not some mumbo jumbo about being tested. The best purposes in life are personal and for this life, not the next life.
So, it isn't really "who needs a purpose?" But more, "who needs an external/religious purpose?"

So, the answers really are that simple, just hard to put into words for those still caught up in religion's version of reality.

User avatar
MerrieMiss
Posts: 580
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 9:03 pm

Re: Mormon stories 852-857

Post by MerrieMiss » Wed Jan 31, 2018 6:52 pm

alas wrote:
Tue Jan 30, 2018 8:26 pm
slavereeno wrote:
Tue Jan 30, 2018 6:13 pm
MerrieMiss wrote:
Tue Jan 30, 2018 5:56 pm
I was frustrated because I felt like in the last part when John Dehlin asked them some really poignant questions, the answers were glossed over as if they were obvious or didn't matter: How can you be moral without religion? How do you decide morality? How do you find meaning in life? I'm not saying I believe one has to have religion/mormonism to answer these questions, but the answers were flat to me: "Because I am a good person. Just because I am good. Who needs a meaning for life?" Perhaps I am being too rough on the individuals, but these are real questions people struggle with and I didn't feel like their answers were sufficient. Philosophers have a lot to say on these issues, and all they had was, "Just because."
This would frustrate me as well. Its one of those things I still don't have a good answer for to give to DW. She would like some guidance on teaching morality and right now where else but religion to get it? I can cite a bunch of different sources maybe and go it individually, I would like that. But the "product" the church sells is compelling to her, morality all correlated and taught consistently worldwide. The church's mis-deeds are worth the price to some.
I think those answers are really exactly that simple. It is just that religion has laid claim to human morality, and you have to get out of religious thinking to realize that religion only claims to own morality, but doesn't. Morality was around long before religion and will be around long after. Look at it from the perspective of evolutionary psychology. Those human bands that did not have morality died off because they had infighting, murder, theft. A human band has enough trouble surviving in a paleo environment without killing each other. So, humans have some morality that is instinctive (even dogs and wolves have an inborn sense of fair play, and get very upset if treated unfairly, or even watching another being treated unfairly) psychologists have tested infants too young to have learned "morality" and they recognize unfairness and hurting others and essentially they have an instinctive morality. Some better than others, just like some humans have other traits on a spectrum. And then Humans reinforce that instinctive morality with culture, thus we developed religion.

And really, meaning of life. Read Victor Frankl. He had a whole therapy based in helping people find their personal purpose. We each find our own purpose in life, because any other kind really has no meaning. Religion offers a purpose that is not for this life, but for the next life. Ask anyone and religion or not, the reason they give as the purpose for life is going to be personal, not some mumbo jumbo about being tested. The best purposes in life are personal and for this life, not the next life.
So, it isn't really "who needs a purpose?" But more, "who needs an external/religious purpose?"

So, the answers really are that simple, just hard to put into words for those still caught up in religion's version of reality.
I don't necessarily disagree with anything you've said, I just think the answers were uninformative. If I'm going to listen to six-eight hours of interview, I expect it to be in depth. Saying "I'm moral just because I am" isn't satisfying. Your (alas's) response was more informative and far more thought provoking. I just expect someone to dig deeper if they are going to take that much of my time. I expect "Just because" if I'm conversing with them on the bus.

On the flip side, they spent a long time discussing how to tell their bishop they didn't believe anymore. Perhaps this is a personality difference or the fact I don't live in Utah, but I don't wonder for one moment what I am ever going to tell my bishop. I don't care. He is not important to me, wasn't when I was TBM, isn't now and it's none of his business. Who I am and why I am and how I am going to live my life moving forward are far more important to me. These are the questions and ideas I study and reevaluate and come back to time and time again.

I really don't believe one needs god, religion, Mormonism to be a good person or to find meaning, but even if that is true I don't think the answers are simple; if they were, people wouldn't have existential crises (or even mid-life crises). That's why Frankl wrote his book (which I have read) and developed his therapy. It's why there exists existentialism. These are problems developed anew for each child born that they must settle and decide for themselves.

My takeaway from their responses on these issues were these: None of the four had experienced any kind of crisis relating to existence or morality, or they didn't want to talk about it, or they didn't think too deeply about it. And this surprises me, because time and time again these are the issues that surface when someone's identity, center of purpose, etc is destroyed or changes. The last several people to post introductions on NOM have asked these exact questions. I was simply surprised and frustrated that these issues got a pass.

User avatar
alas
Posts: 2357
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:10 pm

Re: Mormon stories 852-857

Post by alas » Thu Feb 01, 2018 1:22 am

MerrieMiss wrote:
Wed Jan 31, 2018 6:52 pm
alas wrote:
Tue Jan 30, 2018 8:26 pm
slavereeno wrote:
Tue Jan 30, 2018 6:13 pm


This would frustrate me as well. Its one of those things I still don't have a good answer for to give to DW. She would like some guidance on teaching morality and right now where else but religion to get it? I can cite a bunch of different sources maybe and go it individually, I would like that. But the "product" the church sells is compelling to her, morality all correlated and taught consistently worldwide. The church's mis-deeds are worth the price to some.
I think those answers are really exactly that simple. It is just that religion has laid claim to human morality, and you have to get out of religious thinking to realize that religion only claims to own morality, but doesn't. Morality was around long before religion and will be around long after. Look at it from the perspective of evolutionary psychology. Those human bands that did not have morality died off because they had infighting, murder, theft. A human band has enough trouble surviving in a paleo environment without killing each other. So, humans have some morality that is instinctive (even dogs and wolves have an inborn sense of fair play, and get very upset if treated unfairly, or even watching another being treated unfairly) psychologists have tested infants too young to have learned "morality" and they recognize unfairness and hurting others and essentially they have an instinctive morality. Some better than others, just like some humans have other traits on a spectrum. And then Humans reinforce that instinctive morality with culture, thus we developed religion.

And really, meaning of life. Read Victor Frankl. He had a whole therapy based in helping people find their personal purpose. We each find our own purpose in life, because any other kind really has no meaning. Religion offers a purpose that is not for this life, but for the next life. Ask anyone and religion or not, the reason they give as the purpose for life is going to be personal, not some mumbo jumbo about being tested. The best purposes in life are personal and for this life, not the next life.
So, it isn't really "who needs a purpose?" But more, "who needs an external/religious purpose?"

So, the answers really are that simple, just hard to put into words for those still caught up in religion's version of reality.
I don't necessarily disagree with anything you've said, I just think the answers were uninformative. If I'm going to listen to six-eight hours of interview, I expect it to be in depth. Saying "I'm moral just because I am" isn't satisfying. Your (alas's) response was more informative and far more thought provoking. I just expect someone to dig deeper if they are going to take that much of my time. I expect "Just because" if I'm conversing with them on the bus.

On the flip side, they spent a long time discussing how to tell their bishop they didn't believe anymore. Perhaps this is a personality difference or the fact I don't live in Utah, but I don't wonder for one moment what I am ever going to tell my bishop. I don't care. He is not important to me, wasn't when I was TBM, isn't now and it's none of his business. Who I am and why I am and how I am going to live my life moving forward are far more important to me. These are the questions and ideas I study and reevaluate and come back to time and time again.

I really don't believe one needs god, religion, Mormonism to be a good person or to find meaning, but even if that is true I don't think the answers are simple; if they were, people wouldn't have existential crises (or even mid-life crises). That's why Frankl wrote his book (which I have read) and developed his therapy. It's why there exists existentialism. These are problems developed anew for each child born that they must settle and decide for themselves.

My takeaway from their responses on these issues were these: None of the four had experienced any kind of crisis relating to existence or morality, or they didn't want to talk about it, or they didn't think too deeply about it. And this surprises me, because time and time again these are the issues that surface when someone's identity, center of purpose, etc is destroyed or changes. The last several people to post introductions on NOM have asked these exact questions. I was simply surprised and frustrated that these issues got a pass.
The short answers they did give says they have had the crisis, but they still dodged the question or brushed it off. Come to examine why they would give a too simplistic answer, and I don't get into it for all the newcomers who ask either. So, in an interview, I wonder if I could give a satisfactory answer. I suspect I would also kind of brush it aside. Is it just hard to put into words? It it too personal to get into in any real depth? I admit that I avoid answering it the many times it comes up with the new people because I don't know where they are in the journey, and I don't want to expose my thinking.

For example, purpose in life...while my kids were little it was raising them, but it has shifted to learning everything I can, or maybe just enjoying my time? You know, that is hard to pin down. I don't think we can live for a next life, cause that is not living but waiting to die. So, I don't think I would want to discuss that in a podcast. Saying that I believe the porpose in life taught by religion is nothing but waiting to die, in podcast format, especially if I have not worked out wording ahead of time to make it clear. And how does that sound to those who are still in the religion. I am just not sure I even would like my believing husband to read this.

Personally, I never worried much about the morality issue, because I just never believed the idea that religion makes us better people. Yeah, I grew up on the Beatles song Imagine, with imagine there's no religion but people living in peace. So I guess I always saw religion more as something that divides people and makes them hateful than something that teaches morality. Not a problem if I stop believing in God cause God is a jerk. But you know, I might not want to get into that in a podcast, and once again, how offensive would that be to the believers? That would pick a fight with my believing husband. He never did like to hear my "attitude" that religion is more harm than good.

So, it might be a combination of a hard question that if not understood well could be offensive and kind of personal, so they just didn't feel comfortable answering in that format.

User avatar
Corsair
Posts: 3080
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 9:58 am
Location: Phoenix

Re: Mormon stories 852-857

Post by Corsair » Thu Feb 01, 2018 12:19 pm

alas wrote:
Tue Jan 30, 2018 8:26 pm
And really, meaning of life. Read Victor Frankl. He had a whole therapy based in helping people find their personal purpose.
Pick up a copy of "Man's Search for Meaning" by Victor Frankl. Just read the first half about his experiences surviving the Auswitz concentration camp in WW2. The second half on Logotherapy is fine, but the first half alone can be life changing.

As far as God and morality, there is also the old Hasidic story about Why Did God Create Atheists?
There is a famous story told in Hasidic literature that addresses this very question. The Master teaches the student that God created everything in the world to be appreciated, since everything is here to teach us a lesson. One clever student asks “What lesson can we learn from atheists? Why did God create them?”

The Master responds “God created atheists to teach us the most important lesson of them all — the lesson of true compassion. You see, when an atheist performs and act of charity, visits someone who is sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the world, he is not doing so because of some religious teaching. He does not believe that god commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe in God at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense of morality. And look at the kindness he can bestow upon others simply because he feels it to be right.

“This means,” the Master continued “that when someone reaches out to you for help, you should never say ‘I pray that God will help you.’ Instead for the moment, you should become an atheist, imagine that there is no God who can help, and say ‘I will help you.'” If there is redemption in religion, I believe it is when people come to understand this story.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests