How to get an ex-Mormon riled up

[why_me]

Actually, I would probably be inclined to “discount” what “Cindy” had to say… I was born and raised Catholic…and I have never been taught about an “angry” God…nor was I inflicted with “guilt”. I was taught a set of morals and beliefs…but nor inflicted with guilt of any sort. For the most part…what is called “Catholic Guilt” is just the same as “Jewish Guilt”, or any other kind of guilt. By the way…Wikipedia is about as “reliable” a source of information as “Pravda”…

If I had but a nickel for every “internet-posting-former-Catholic” who “found” God… I would be driving a brand new Bentley paid for with cash and retired to my private island in the Med!

For many excatholics the catholic church is about guilt as a means of control. Case in point: masturbation. In the good ol’ days, the church frowned upon masturbation and still does. And nuns would exclaim that masturbation caused blindness in order to deter young people in engaging in it.

And so, if a catholic has this problem, they may not feel good about themselves. And to go to the priest to confess this sin is just not an option for many. Thus, guilt can set in. The same applies to many sexual sins.

Protestant sects for many excatholics are less guilt and more love, so the excatholic can claim.

 

[why_me]

Don’t be so sure!

I have journals written at the hands of my pioneer ancestors who swore up and down that the term “Christian” was never to be attributed to “the Saints”…

I don’t know about that but if true, there is one possible explanation. Go back to the Indian Wars and you will see a lot of christians killing Indians. For the lds, the indian was a lamanite and becaused of this, a promised people.

Also, as noted by Joseph Smith with his vision, christianity had its problems back then. It was very devisive and so called christians were burning mormon homes.

 

[RC_Matt]

The inference to ‘Morg’ is a term that antimormons use to define a membership that is of one mind and somewhat robotic. What they refuse to acknowledge is that Paul counseled the churches to be of one mind and one accord as a body in christ.

LOL, I think the two connotations refer to somewhat different concepts….

 

[xixxvmcm85]

I don’t know about that but if true, there is one possible explanation. Go back to the Indian Wars and you will see a lot of christians killing Indians. For the lds, the indian was a lamanite and becaused of this, a promised people.

Also, as noted by Joseph Smith with his vision, christianity had its problems back then. It was very devisive and so called christians were burning mormon homes.

Oh No doubt!

I think it even more probable that the treatment the early Mormons experienced from self-proclaimed “Christians” was enough to turn many of them off to the term itself.

The whole point of my post wasn’t to necessarily disparage the Mormons from using the term Christian, rather to demonstrate that individual people enjoy the right to call themselves how they see fit.

 

[why_me]

Hi Rob,

Fair enough. But just let me assure you that Mormonism teaches that God loves sinners. Period. My experience growing .

I can agree. But only up to a point. During the 1970’s, there was a stress on obedience and perfection. This did cause problems for some lds with guilt. And then, in the late 60’s, Spencer W. Kimball published the book Miracle of Forgiveness which caused problems into the 1970’s since some did not see the miracle but saw the perfection as a way to god. But again, it is all a matter of perception.

The lds stress on obedience can be a real problem for certain personalities. But now I think that there is more talk of forgiveness too and that is a great thing.

That being said, the catholic church is also big on obedience and forgiveness.

 

[why_me]

Oh No doubt!

I think it even more probable that the treatment the early Mormons experienced from self-proclaimed “Christians” was enough to turn many of them off to the term itself.

The whole point of my post wasn’t to necessarily disparage the Mormons from using the term Christian, rather to demonstrate that individual people enjoy the right to call themselves how they see fit.

I just wanted to give context so there wouldn’t be a misunderstanding from the lurkers.

 

[why_me]

LOL, I think the two connotations refer to somewhat different concepts….

No. The term morg refers to Morgbots because for the exers, mormons tend to follow in step with their leaders. But Paul, also cautioned the early church to be of one mind and not full of dissention. I see no difference.

 

[grandfather]

Now, Sullivan is no flaming liberal, and Newman Press isn’t known for printing heresy, as far as I know. Does this intrigue you? Or will you dismiss it without any inclination to read the evidence Sullivan has collected?

I don’t know Sullivan. I do know some early Church history. The lineage of popes can be traced to Peter. We have writings from many or most of them.

The bible teaches there were bishops, priests and deacons as ordained ministers. Many of the very earliest Church writings are from bishops who are for the most part also martyrs. There is no doubt that these men were ordained by the apostles. So Sullivan’s statment is without warrant. The historical record is very clear.

It is unfortunate that some priests say or write stupid things. When they do they often point to opinions of scholars for support, without citing them.

The historical proofs that the apostles appointed their successors are indisputable. Although this is all ancient stuff there is no question of who they were and what they believed. They produced the creeds (credo=belief) that we still recite.

We also have a good history of what Jossph Smith and Brigham Young did and said, what they believed and how they behaved. At best they were a couple of lunatics. There is not a shred of evidence that the beliefs about tribes and civilzations, horses, iron, planets, could possibly be true, not a shred. There is more evidence for the tooth fairy, or Easter Bunny. We have colored eggs and a quarter under the pillow. That is rock solid compared to Mormon ravings.

 

[RC_Matt]

No. The term morg refers to Morgbots because for the exers, mormons tend to follow in step with their leaders. But Paul, also cautioned the early church to be of one mind and not full of dissention. I see no difference.

FYI, the term “the morg” is a take-off from a television show; i.e., “the borg.” Mindless entities that have no free will or intellect and are incapable of thinking for themselves; they can only blindly exercise the will a nefarious collective (“the borg”) into which they have been assimilated. Some people think that situation is similar to Mormonism. While I think that’s maybe stretching things a little far in most cases, it’s certainly not what Paul was taking about.

 

[BDawg]

I can agree. But only up to a point. During the 1970’s, there was a stress on obedience and perfection. This did cause problems for some lds with guilt. And then, in the late 60’s, Spencer W. Kimball published the book Miracle of Forgiveness which caused problems into the 1970’s since some did not see the miracle but saw the perfection as a way to god. But again, it is all a matter of perception.

The lds stress on obedience can be a real problem for certain personalities. But now I think that there is more talk of forgiveness too and that is a great thing.

That being said, the catholic church is also big on obedience and forgiveness.

I wondered about the “Miracle of Forgiveness” book, and I agree that it did cause problems for many people. But once I did a search of Ensign articles during Kimball’s tenure, and found some by General Authorities specifically stating that we don’t have to become perfect in this life. That’s just the ideal we ought to be shooting for, and God will help us do it, even if it takes eons. C.S. Lewis said the same thing when he wrote that Jesus’ mandate in Matt. 5:48 (“Be ye therefore perfect, as your Father in Heaven is perfect,”) is not just “idealistic gas.”

Once again, the problems were caused because some people listened to messages from one side of the coin, but not the other.

 

[BDawg]

I don’t know Sullivan. I do know some early Church history. The lineage of popes can be traced to Peter. We have writings from many or most of them.

The bible teaches there were bishops, priests and deacons as ordained ministers. Many of the very earliest Church writings are from bishops who are for the most part also martyrs. There is no doubt that these men were ordained by the apostles. So Sullivan’s statment is without warrant. The historical record is very clear.

It is unfortunate that some priests say or write stupid things. When they do they often point to opinions of scholars for support, without citing them.

The historical proofs that the apostles appointed their successors are indisputable. Although this is all ancient stuff there is no question of who they were and what they believed. They produced the creeds (credo=belief) that we still recite.

We also have a good history of what Jossph Smith and Brigham Young did and said, what they believed and how they behaved. At best they were a couple of lunatics. There is not a shred of evidence that the beliefs about tribes and civilzations, horses, iron, planets, could possibly be true, not a shred. There is more evidence for the tooth fairy, or Easter Bunny. We have colored eggs and a quarter under the pillow. That is rock solid compared to Mormon ravings.

Classic black-and-white thinking. You take what pieces of evidence you have for your position, and inflate them in your mind. Then you take any perceived lack of evidence for positions with which you disagree, and minimize them beyond recognition. For instance, how many supposed Popes do you think we have writings from in the first and second centuries (the main period under dispute)? I count about 2-3. And they never claimed to be primates of the Church.

And will you bother looking up Sullivan’s book? No, you can dismiss it because “sometimes priests say stupid things,” even though this particular priest is a respected historian publishing through a mainstream Catholic academic press.

 

[BartBurk]

Classic black-and-white thinking. You take what pieces of evidence you have for your position, and inflate them in your mind. Then you take any perceived lack of evidence for positions with which you disagree, and minimize them beyond recognition. For instance, how many supposed Popes do you think we have writings from in the first and second centuries (the main period under dispute)? I count about 2-3. And they never claimed to be primates of the Church.

And will you bother looking up Sullivan’s book? No, you can dismiss it because “sometimes priests say stupid things,” even though this particular priest is a respected historian publishing through a mainstream Catholic academic press.

I suppose I could be accused of black and white thinking on this as well. The reality is that I accept the idea that priesthood authority is important. I compare Joseph Smith’s claim to priesthood authority with the Catholic/Orthodox claim to authority, and it seems to me the Catholic/Orthodox claim is more viable than Joseph Smith’s claim. At some point faith in God’s ability to preserve priesthood authority in spite of the weaknesses of men becomes the foundation for my belief in Catholicism.

If you reject the need for priesthood authority, I guess you can make the case for Protestantism, but you can’t make a case for the Mormonism/Catholicism/Orthodox position.

Of course I suspect God’s grace will ultimately prove triumphant in the lives of those who are attempting to follow Christ to the best of their understanding. I believe that grace flows from God through the Catholic Church to all humanity as people get on the road. In my mind the end of the road is Christ found within the Catholic Church. That road may go through other faith traditions, but it always ends with Catholicism. The people who are in most danger are those who have decided to leave the road altogether – I hope that God’s grace will lead them back. Some people believe all roads lead to God – I’m convinced there is only one road.

I just don’t find anything convincing about Joseph Smith’s claims that would allow me to accept his authority. Mormons are trying to follow Christ, but Joseph Smith is an impediment in the road.

 

[Jerusha]

they can only blindly exercise the will a nefarious collective (“the borg”) into which they have been assimilated. Some people think that situation is similar to Mormonism. While I think that’s maybe stretching things a little far in most cases.

It is certainly stretching things too far, but “figures of speech”, and sarcasm convey the message by doing that very thing.

 

[Jerusha]

Not only do mormons not condemn celibacy but they highly recommend it for those who are not married. In fact, the lds church is a strong supporter of celibacy for unmarried people.

I use the word “celibate” in the modern sense. Not being sexually active, having neither boyfriend, girlfriend, husband, or wife. We know that LDS place single adults on a lower level within the community: that marriage is pressured for everyone.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca, you are a pop psychologist’s dream! Sit back on my couch, and I shall psychologize you.

No, I think I am a Mormon’s dream for all things apostate.

People with a “black-and-white” mindset usually only hear what they want to hear. You might object that you didn’t “want” to hear those messages about that unloving God who condemns people until they are “worthy,” but people “want” all kinds of twisted, sick things when they have a problem with self-hate.

I don’t suffer from black and white thinking bdawg. If anything, if I could think more black and white I probably wouldn’t have struggled so much with life, the universe and everything.

**

Case in point.

I have been a Mormon for 38 years, and somehow I never got the message that God doesn’t love me when I screw up. I’ve always been taught that God loves sinners and reaches out to them, and that God wants to bless us with all things. But God can only give us what we are ready to receive, and so we have to try to be “worthy” of God’s blessings.**

This is where mormonism has taught you in error. God withholds nothing.

Even though God loves everyone, he can get ticked at them if they keep willfully sinning, and they might get a come-uppance. This seems to me to be a balanced way of looking at things, reconciling all those scriptural passages that talk about God’s unfailing love, and those that talk about his anger at sinners.

This is not what I’m talking about. This is, in face, rather black and white.

On the other hand, you seem to have only heard the part about the “angry God,” even though I am certain that the other side was presented to you many, many times. In your self-hating little world, where you “liked to sin,” but wanted God to give you a pass, you only heard the “angry God” message because you knew you weren’t right with God.

This is not what I said. And I think it is very indicative of how mormonism has screwed up your thinking. A desire for God to love, for God to care, for God to want me is not an indication that I suffer from self-hate.

I didn’t ever think about God’s anger, all I wanted to know is that God wanted me.

So you jumped ship, wallowed in petty atheism for a while, and finally latched onto some Pollyanna, cream-puff version of Catholicism, where nobody has ever heard of the phrase, “Catholic guilt.”

Whatever is all I can say to this bdawg.

You should Google the phrase “Catholic guilt.” I did, and got almost 74,000 hits. There’s even a Wikipedia article about it. One of the first hits was from a BB where someone named “Cindy” posted the following:

Yes, I understand your need to discount what I have to say. But you are not listening. All you want to do is tell me what is wrong with me. Something that is the answer to everything in Mormonism.

There is nothing wrong with me.

Can you see the parallel? This person grew up Catholic, and somehow only got the negative, sinners-are-damned sort of messages.

This is not what I was describing.

She snapped, and ended up in some fundamentalist Christian church where she has finally learned that she is saved by grace! You grew up Mormon, and somehow only got the negative, sinners-are-damned sort of messages. You snapped, and ended up in the Catholic church, where you finally learned that you are saved by grace!

I learned the truth, which you clearly don’t understand and so you go off on tangents that have nothing to do with who I am, or what I am saying.

Let’s just hope that as you and Cindy skip along in your respective magical fairylands where you feel so free and easy, that you don’t bother to ever read the Bible. You might stumble upon inconvenient passages like this:

You really need me to be this make believe person, don’t you?

Oh, I’m sure that you can find a way to reinterpret this according to your magical worldview, but here’s a warning. THERE’S LOTS MORE LIKE THIS IN THERE! Avoid it like the plague, or one day you’ll find that all those mental gymnastics are too tiring, and you will have another crisis. Your black-and-white world will crumble.

You are basing everything you are saying on a make believe Rebecca that isn’t me.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Hi Rebecca,

I’m not done psychologizing you.

I notice that as you prance around in the eternal sunshine of the spotless mind, unaware that many people leave Catholicism for exactly the same reasons you left Mormonism, you are incredibly critical of your former religion. (And sporadically foul-mouthed about it.) This is actually a manifestation of a peculiar phenomenon among black-and-white thinking people.

Again, you don’t know me. I think this is indicative of your need to analyze people who left Mormonism. It can never be for valid reasons. For the reason that it is, that Mormonism is a lie, it is false, it has corrupted Christianity. No, it isn’t Mormonism that has the problems, it is the people who leave. And so you have this need to “analyze” my thoughts, my actions, my words, and as you do all things, you twist them and corrupt them to a corrupt purpose.

When you had your “grey area crisis” and left Mormonism, you were angry, and probably read every anti-Mormon screed you could get your hands on, collecting evidence for the prosecution of your former faith.As the evidence mounted, you could see so clearly that you had been hoodwinked, tricked, deceived. The evidence was overwhelming!

Actually I never read anything that you would call anti-Mormon until I was firmly in my atheism. And then, what I read only supported what I had figured out on my own.

And so here we are, again, where you are creating bdawg’s make believe world where everything is as he sees it. Practicing for godhood?

As your anger subsided, you substituted another feeling: smug superiority.

My anger didn’t subside, like some ebb and flow of a tide. My anger was ANGER, larger than life, at the lies that Mormonism had taught me. What I DECIDED is that I had to let it go, that the thing I loathed was controlling my life, keeping me from truth, keeping me from God.

It comes around once in a while, still. Mormons can set it off, like when they start telling me make believe stories about myself. Like somehow, they are God and know my soul.

Sure, you were deceived before, but you were just a kid! Now you can calmly discuss what a “mind (f-bomb)” you have bravely escaped. You’re a hero!

Actually, I do consider that I escaped. Though not for the reasons you are portraying. And no, I don’t think I am a hero. Lucky, and also something that you don’t believe because it isn’t possible in your Mormon world where God withhold’s things…even in my atheism, God was there, not withholding anything.

Calling other people’s religions “mind (f-bombs)” isn’t rude, condescending, low-class, trailer-trash bigotry, because you are just boldly proclaiming the truths you have so bravely discovered, at great personal cost. No “sugar-coating” for you.

Yes, and calling me mentally deficient because I have a desire for God’s love is all high society and, oh, what…atheist? You are almost there, just stop believing in the lies you work so hard to hold together, and there you will be…godless. This is what Mormonism teaches people.

In place of your first black-and-white worldview (a twisted version of Mormonism hatched in the mind of a rebellious teenager,) you have adopted another (Pollyanna Catholicism.) But you came out ahead in the deal, because now many Catholics will laud you as a heroine for bravely escaping from the Mormon Cult! You have it all, now, because you have a nice, new black-and-white worldview, and you can pretend that you are a brave defender of intellectual honesty.

But in the end, you’re just the same as you ever were.

bdawg’s lala land of Mormonism, where anyone who doesn’t believe is thinking too black and white and wants to love God too much.

 

[RobHom]

For many excatholics the catholic church is about guilt as a means of control. Case in point: masturbation. In the good ol’ days, the church frowned upon masturbation and still does. And nuns would exclaim that masturbation caused blindness in order to deter young people in engaging in it.

Yes I heard things like that as a child…and even as a teenager. But those things in and of themselves did not create “guilt”.

And so, if a catholic has this problem, they may not feel good about themselves. And to go to the priest to confess this sin is just not an option for many. Thus, guilt can set in. The same applies to many sexual sins.

I think the “guilt issue” spans most peoples of most religions. Its not a Catholic invention. My Jewish friends…and my Jewish cousins…you should hear them talk about “guilt”. The people I know that are Protestants…are far from immune to guilt. They are guilt ridden in their own rights. No-one is immune, unless they are brain-dead or sociopaths. Oddly enough it would seem that most “guilt” is actually dispensed by our parents in an attempt to either manipulate our lives, or warn us away from possible errors. Sadly, too many parents (generically said) try to use manipulative guilt as a weapon.

Protestant sects for many excatholics are less guilt and more love, so the excatholic can claim.

True enough. If one joins Flip Wilson’s “Church of Whats Happening Now”…they can write the rules. Never mind what God has said, or what the Apostles wrote, or what the ECF’s wrote. Many feel that they have the freedom to re-write the rules, and whatever makes them feel good…is good.

For instance: Divorce is very much forbidden in the Bible, and yet I have had conversations with some of “them”…that say they can find nothing “biblical” against divorce…

Me, the only time I feel guilt…is when I have sinned, and I have failed to honor God and His Word. I do believe that I shall remain Catholic til the day I die, and thereafter.

 

[why_me]

I use the word “celibate” in the modern sense. Not being sexually active, having neither boyfriend, girlfriend, husband, or wife. We know that LDS place single adults on a lower level within the community: that marriage is pressured for everyone.

I don’t think that the lds church places single adults on the lower ladder. However, people are encouraged to get married if possible. But there are many programs for single adults, depending on the area and the ward. And the pressure to marry is a thing of the past for most lds,especially the older adults. For young adults depending on the location, the pressure can exist or not exist.

But during my day as a young adult, there was pressure but only because of sex. No marriage, no sex. But I did manage to learn to converse with the opposite sex without the pressure of sex.

 

[why_me]

Yes I heard things like that as a child…and even as a teenager. But those things in and of themselves did not create “guilt”.

Me, the only time I feel guilt…is when I have sinned, and I have failed to honor God and His Word. I do believe that I shall remain Catholic til the day I die, and thereafter.

Guilt is always a negative feeling and yet, a useful one, if it demonstrates that god has not given up on us. Most devout catholics and god-minded people can feel guilt when they did something wrong. I don’t think that it is conditioned but rather innate, if it is true that we all have the light of christ in us.

 

[BDawg]

I suppose I could be accused of black and white thinking on this as well. The reality is that I accept the idea that priesthood authority is important. I compare Joseph Smith’s claim to priesthood authority with the Catholic/Orthodox claim to authority, and it seems to me the Catholic/Orthodox claim is more viable than Joseph Smith’s claim.

Hi Bart,

This isn’t necessarily black-and-white thinking. These claims to exclusive priesthood authority are either true or false, by nature. A mature thinker looks at the evidence for and against both sides, and decides which looks more convincing. But since this kind of evidence is always spotty and of varying quality, a mature thinker realizes that another rational person might look at the same evidence and come to a different conclusion, given their own predispositions.

A black-and-white thinker assumes that if the truth value of a proposition is black-and-white, the evidence for or against it must be black-and-white. Therefore, in grandfather’s mind, the there must be scads of evidence for apostolic succession and the papacy, and no evidence at all for Mormon claims.

I think that the Mormon priesthood claims are true, and the Catholic ones are false. And I have weighed the evidence for both. But I recognize that I include a number of personal experiences in my catalog of evidences, and so I can’t really expect that another person, who has had a completely different set of experiences, would necessarily come to the same conclusions that I do, even given the same set of historical evidence.

Do you feel the same way?