Any fellow ExMo's here? [Archive]

Acrimonious

21st January 2004, 09:31 AM

The final factor in my apostasy involved my first "girlfriend."

We were both 14. The church's "morality" rules prevent dating until 16. I was not allowed to see her outside of Sunday Sacrament Meetings and Young Men/Young Women group get-togethers. I would see her twice a week, for only a few hours, surrounded by chaperones, unable to really talk about anything but faith. My phone calls with her were monitored by parents (both hers and mine).

There was a Youth Conference (a 7 day long religious retreat) that summer in a nearby college town. They set us up in the Dorms, and gave us schedules and programs for all the talks (sermons).

A lot of us trashed our schedules and went about playing volleyball, tennis, ping-pong, roller-blading the grounds, and swimming in the school's olympic pool. Sometimes, we would just walk the grounds. She and I spend almost all of our waking time together.

In those 7 days, we learned more about each other than the 7 years we had attended the same church. We both agreed that we didn't believe the church doctrine anymore. Like Nyarlathotep, we had been drifting away for a long time. We both found out the only reason we continued attending church was to see each other. We didn't do anything like teen sex, groping, or "making out." We had one single goodbye kiss the last day of the conference before we had to board the gender-segregated busses.

After the Youth Conference was over, word got back to the local Bishop that some of us had spent the entire time "partying." Word also got back that she and I had spent the entire time "being immoral." I was not allowed to take the Sacrament for 2 months. I was forced to repent my "sins" to the Bishop face-to-face. Worst of all, I was prevented from seeing her or even talking to her on the phone. She stopped coming to church.

Within 4 months (YES, 4 months), I was told that she had run off with a Satan worshipper, had this evil man's child, and sacrificed it to the devil before it was a day old. Who told me this? My loving, Mormon mother.

Troylus

21st January 2004, 09:36 AM

Thanks for the replies!

In brief, I was raised a good Mormon boy by stalwart believing parents, attended BYU on scholarship, served a Mormon mission to Korea, was temple endowed and married my Mormon girlfriend in 1990 in the Las Vegas temple.

My wife and I have since left the Church together including going through the formalized process of having our records removed from Church records. (Unless you've done the same, Acrimonious and Nyarlathotep, you are still being counted as one of their faithful flock - just "less active" - irrespective of your actual beliefs).

I've sent Randi an e-mail offering to speak on my experiences within Mormonism at the next TAM. Many of my fellow skeptics seemed genuinely interested in how a deeply indoctrinated believer and former missionary can make the journey out of Mormonism.

Nyarlathotep

21st January 2004, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by Troylus
Thanks for the replies!

In brief, I was raised a good Mormon boy by stalwart believing parents, attended BYU on scholarship, served a Mormon mission to Korea, was temple endowed and married my Mormon girlfriend in 1990 in the Las Vegas temple.

My wife and I have since left the Church together including going through the formalized process of having our records removed from Church records. (Unless you've done the same, Acrimonious and Nyarlathotep, you are still being counted as one of their faithful flock - just "less active" - irrespective of your actual beliefs).

I've sent Randi an e-mail offering to speak on my experiences within Mormonism at the next TAM. Many of my fellow skeptics seemed genuinely interested in how a deeply indoctrinated believer and former missionary can make the journey out of Mormonism.

Yeah, I know that I am probsbly still listed on their records somewhere. As far as I am concerned they can count me as a Mormon on paper all they want. It's not worth the time, effort and listening to their attempts to get me back for me to formally remove myself.

Overall, my time in the church wasn't all that bad. I probably never would have left except for the fact that I had trouble with the whole believing in God thing. However I wasn't so emotionally invested in the church that I found it particularly hard to leave either. I just stopped going and that was that.

Peter Jenkins

21st January 2004, 11:14 AM

I was previously assimilated by the Morg, but managed to escape a few years ago.
I know that RandFan was exmo (a previous missionary, too). He was a very active poster at one time, but I haven't seen him post recently.
Fawn M Brodies book was 'No man knows my history'.
The book is fairly old-hat now (i think it was written in the 50's or 60's) and the Morg have adapted to many of its points, by attacking Brodies motives and research.
For a good (though, christian based) rebuttal to Mormon arguments, try
Utah Lighthouse Ministry (http://www.utlm.org)
Peter

hgc

22nd January 2004, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by Acrimonious
...

Within 4 months (YES, 4 months), I was told that she had run off with a Satan worshipper, had this evil man's child, and sacrificed it to the devil before it was a day old. Who told me this? My loving, Mormon mother. One has to wonder what kind of rationale was used to sanction this lie. (Lying is a sin, right?) Any insight?

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

22nd January 2004, 03:54 PM

Acrimonious said:
Within 4 months (YES, 4 months), I was told that she had run off with a Satan worshipper, had this evil man's child, and sacrificed it to the devil before it was a day old. Who told me this? My loving, Mormon mother.
WTF? What kind of crap is that? AAAAAAArrrrrrgggggghhhhh!

Sorry, that really set me off. I'm okay now.

~~ Paul

epepke

22nd January 2004, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by Troylus
I'm a former Mormon. Does anyone else posting here share that fantabulous distinction? Even better, are there any poor misled Mormon faithful who post here?

I prefer the term Church of Jesus Christ and LD-50.

Not I. I did, however, go thorugh a period rather recently when I admired LDS types. Eventually, however, they'd let somethin fly that was the verbal equivalent of an ice pick through the forehead, leading me to conclude that all that niceness was just an act.

Acrimonious

23rd January 2004, 08:16 AM

Disclaimer: My family was probably not your average loving, Mormon household.

My father is a violent bipolar. I grew up thinking that everyone's dad was liable to punch holes through walls at the slightest provocation.

My mother... I don't think is classifiable. She would tell everyone in the church how smart and holy her four mormon children were, then turn around and tell us we were evil tools of Satan who were going to burn in hell.

My sister once got caught trying a single cigarette. My mother faked a nervous breakdown. My brother and I wrestled all the time (don't all brothers?). One time when it went to fisticuffs, she faked a nervous breakdown. It was standard operating procedure: she'd go into her bedroom and cry until my father would find the "culprit" and drag them in to face her. She'd say "I've failed as a Mother. How could I have failed to raise you in the love of the Lord? I might as well die now." Then he'd say "You see what you're doing to your mother?" And we'd be expected to repent our sins right there in front of them.

Eventually, it got old. The last time this happened was when I told her I didn't believe in God (I was 15... shortly after the events I described above). I got the entire 2-act play. Instead of repenting / apologizing, I said something like: "Yes, it seems you've failed as a mother. You might as well die." and I walked out. She never had any more "nervous breakdowns" after that. Instead, she started threatening to disown us.

CFLarsen

23rd January 2004, 08:38 AM

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Are you familiar with Dan Garvin (http://www.lermanet.com/exit/dangarvin1.htm)? His reasons for leaving $cientology can be summed up in one word - Xenu.

Dan Garvin's account can also be read here:

"I started thinking, and I got carried away." (http://www.skepticreport.com/mystics/dangarvin.htm)

Julia

23rd January 2004, 09:13 AM

Acrimonious.

I am speechless. How did you survive?

Acrimonious

23rd January 2004, 10:01 AM

You can put up with a lot of bullcrap when you know it's only going to be for a short-term period.

They always told me they owned me until I was 18. I just had to abide until then.

You should have seen the disappointment on my mother's face when she tried to force me into a Mission at 17 and failed. It's a good thing the local Bishop wasn't too keen on sending out a guy without a temple recommend, who hadn't attended services in 2 years, who happened to be a vocal agnostic.

Troylus

23rd January 2004, 12:27 PM

Force you on a Mission at 17?

Sounds fishy to me. Mormons are not allowed to serve full-time missions until the age of 19.

Perhaps they encouraged you to go on splits with the missionaries or do some stake missionary work?

Acrimonious

23rd January 2004, 02:59 PM

It's been a decade. I don't recall all of the rules and regulations behind it. I know I was 17 and she was pushing extremely hard for me to go on a mission.

The Bishop came to my house out of nowhere to talk to me about my "decision to go on a mission" and the requirements I'd need to fulfill if I were serious (Active status, Temple Recommend, believing in God and Joseph Smith, etc).

When he showed up, it was the first I'd heard of it, so I'd assumed mom had filled out some paperwork and submitted it in my name.

Jack

24th January 2004, 04:00 PM

RandFan here,

Sorry I don't have a username and that I am hijacking my son's.

I just wanted to make what I feel is an important point.

I left the Mormon Church because being an agnostic I would be living a lie if I continued to be a part of it.

I have no ill will towards the church or any of its members. On the contrary, I have had the fortunate pleasure to know many wonderful and decent Mormons who befriended me and my family. Many people who I respected and still respect. Many are still my friends. Both my wife's family and mine are comprised almost exclusively of active members of the church.

I miss much about the church. The ward parties, the camaraderie, the sense of family and belonging. A friend of mine who is also agnostic recommended the Unitarian Universalist Association (http://www.uua.org/). She attends and says that it provides much of what I have been missing. They accept atheists and agnostics and people of all faiths.

In the interest of truth I just want you to know that the church, in spite of its origins and any of its other faults is comprised of many great and wonderful people. Yes, it is also comprised of many bad and deceitful people. But then what organization isn't made up of both good, bad everything in between?

(Unless you've done the same, Acrimonious and Nyarlathotep, you are still being counted as one of their faithful flock - just "less active" - irrespective of your actual beliefs). To what end? So I am on some list? I respect your decision to have your name removed from the records Troylus but I don't see the point.

Anyway, I hope you will forgive the post.

RandFan

Troylus

25th January 2004, 12:00 PM

While I understand that many who are not active in Mormonism, but who once were don't see any motivation to go through the process of having their names removed from the Church records, I also think that there are several worthwhile reasons worth considering.

1. The Mormon Church uses your membership as a marketing tool to help it evangelize itself. This is primarily done via its constant "growth reports" so that Mormonism appears to be continually growing ever larger. The true situation is that Mormonism suffers from a very high inactivity rate - but the Mormons don't report this.

2. For your own personal sense of integrity. I would be troubled if the Scientologists (for example) counted me among their membership even though I don't believe in their tenets. I, similarly, don't want to be counted among the Mormon faithful because I believe they are every bit as wrong as the Scientologists.

3. Privacy. As long as you remain on the Mormon Church's records, they feel that they have a claim to your actions and wherabouts. Even if you haven't attended services in years, they'll check in on you from time to time to make sure that they know where you are and what you may be doing. Many inactive Mormons are surprised to learn that the Church is tracking them (as best they can).

4. Your children. This was actually a major impetus for why my wife and I had our names removed. We have two children and, even though we hadn't been to Church in years, the local ecclesiastical authorities were beginning to make efforts to involve our young children in Mormon events. They would call and ask to speak to our kids and invite them to Church - without involving us as parents. We found this to be distasteful and even a bit deceitful.

Again, I recognize that not everyone will care about things like this. But my wife and I felt strongly enough that Mormonism was false and potentially harmful that we went through the official process of having our names removed.

I encourage anyone who is also similarly inclined to do the same.

Chanileslie

25th January 2004, 12:38 PM

I'm an ex-mormon, but I wasn't raised as a mormon, I joined the church as a very lonely and confused 15 year old girl. I was questioning it in less than a year, and was completely out of it in 2 years. Of course to be fair, I really never believed in the whole god thingy although I tried to believe, but I kept running up against these 'walls' that told me, "this is stupid." I liked the community of the mormon church.

Peter Jenkins

25th January 2004, 02:45 PM

see my sig.
I make a distinction between the church and it's heirarchy (the Morg) and the members.
Like Chani, I was a shy kid (still am, really, Hands up anyone at TAM II who can remember what the heck I looked like?). I was attracted to the CoJCoLDS partly by the doctrine, but also by the friendliness of the people and the social events.
When I criticise the Morg, please note that I am criticising the heirarchy and the doctrine. I always acknowledge that there are some genuinely nice people who (for whatever reason) are active members of the CoJCoLDS.
Peter

Jack

25th January 2004, 10:47 PM

This post is from RandFan

Originally posted by Troylus
...But my wife and I felt strongly enough that Mormonism was false and potentially harmful that we went through the official process of having our names removed. I can't say that my life is better for not being a Mormon. Furthermore I can't say that my life is better than my friends or family who are Mormons.

I accept that there is potential for harm. But on the other hand it is demonstrable that there is great potential for good. Furthermore any potential for harm to my children is easily mitigated by parental influence.

I don't send my children to church but I do take my son to seminary (Mormon theology class) and he does attend church from time to time with family. I'm not scared of the church. I teach my children about sexuality and masturbation and other areas that I think the church does a poor job on. I have taught my son about critical thinking and skepticism. I have also taught him not to fear religion or people of any faith or lack thereof. I told him that such fear is irrational. If one is objective and intellectually honest there is nothing to fear.

Joseph Smith was not a prophet of god. If there is a god, and I doubt it, he is not communicating with Mormon leaders.

That being said, I would be interested in any empirical or demonstrable evidence that being a member of the Mormon Church is more likely to harm its members than to benefit them.

As a parent I can understand and respect your desire to steer you children away from participating in an organization that was founded on lies and deception. But I think it extreme to fear "harm" from the Mormon Church. I will acknowledge that my experience is anecdotal and I am willing to consider any data that you might have.

For your own personal sense of integrity.

With all due respect, I don't accept this. I would very much like there to be a god. I would like the Mormon Church to be true. However, a commitment to objectivity and personal honesty led me to reject these notions. This rejection has come at a cost. It has hurt people that I love and taken me away from an organization that I valued. When asked, I tell the truth about my beliefs regardless of the consequences. My personal "integrity" does not suffer because someone else chooses to consider me a member of their organization.

Troylus,

I have a feeling that we are going to disagree about these things. I hope you can respect my position the way that I respect yours. I don't have any deep issues with the church. I bear them no malice and I have no problem with friends and family belonging to the church. I only ask them that they respect my decision not to be a member as I respect their decision to remain members.

RandFan

Regnad Kcin

25th January 2004, 11:35 PM

Originally posted by Acrimonious
Within 4 months (YES, 4 months), I was told that she had run off with a Satan worshipper, had this evil man's child, and sacrificed it to the devil before it was a day old. Who told me this? My loving, Mormon mother. Forgive the intrusion, but the above is not clear. Are you saying your girlfriend actually did this? (If so, what would explain her behavior?) An actual Satan worshipper? Really?

Or do you mean that your mother exaggerated (or made the whole thing up) to taunt/punish you?

Were you never able to contact the young woman again?

Thanks.

Troylus

26th January 2004, 11:46 AM

Randfan
I agree that we probably have differing opinions as to Mormonism. However, if you are amenable to considering my point of view, I’ll try to explain why I feel there is a very real potential for harm.

First, I’ll begin by acknowledging that there are many good things that seem to correlate with Mormon belief. Most notably, the Mormon Word of Wisdom that encourages its members to abstain from alcohol and tobacco is in line with healthy living. So too, Mormons have demonstrated that they genuinely want to improve social and familial relationships – especially as they work towards encouraging faith and camaraderie within the Mormon community. I completely understand and empathize with the pragmatic position of, “If Mormon belief encourages its members to be a little healthier and provides them with a tightly-knit social coherence – complete with service-oriented friends and family – then what is the harm in it?”

In my estimation, while Mormonism does have its positives in areas such as these, it also encourages a great many negatives. Enough of them, in fact, that I think the net effect of the belief system is harmful.

I believe the Mormonism is a fundamentalist sect of Christianity and suffers from all the inherent dangers that such fundamentalism can incur. Notably, I believe that Mormonism encourages a value system that has the potential, if left unchecked, to lead to a whole host of problems.
Here are some of the values of which I speak:

1. Mormonism encourages Ignorance over Knowledge Mormons are encouraged to believe things on the basis of how it makes them feel, not on the actual supporting facts. Furthermore, they are discouraged from investigating or exploring contrary opinions. Mormons are strongly admonished not to investigate or read any materials that might cast the Church in an unfavorable light. It is better to remain ignorant of the facts of Mormonism and preserve ones belief than it is to educate oneself and discover the truth.

2. Mormonism encourages Obedience over Understanding. Mormons are very keen upon authority and are actively taught that they should look to those in ecclesiastical positions of power above them for guidance. The value here is that it is better to “be safe” and obey an ecclesiastical edict than it is to seek for the reasons behind that edict. This value is most often highlighted in instances where a difficult or complex problem is reduced to an absolute policy. Rather than encouraging believers to figure things out for themselves, a Mormon leader issues a blanket statement to which all other believers are held. This value is especially damaging because it tends to alleviate the believer of the responsibility of his or her actions. After all, he or she was only “following instructions.” A believer is not encouraged to think about the reasoning or likely outcome of a command, rather his or her entire duty is merely to obey it.

3. Mormonism values Supernatural explanations over Natural ones. “Miracles happen everyday,” would be a common expression of this value. The believer is encouraged not only to reject ordinary (naturalistic) explanations of events, but also to actively look for them. Presumably, it is bolstering to one’s faith to see the hand of the Mormon God intervening as often as possible. Therefore, it is good to look for supernatural explanations even when the natural ones are perfectly satisfactory. Over time, this practice begins to damage the believer in that he or she loses the ability to discern reality from fantasy. Again, evidence is discounted in favor of emotion. If believing in a “miracle” makes someone feel warm about their beliefs, it is taken to be a good thing, even if that supposed miracle is nothing more than wishful thinking. Once the believer has lost touch with reality, they lose the ability to make rational decisions about the world in which they live. It becomes perfectly acceptable (even admirable) to see the work of unseen and unknown powers in everyday life. Eventually, this can lead to disastrous results (as I’ll illustrate later).

4. Mormonism encourages its believers to value Death over Life. “This life is only temporary, it is the next one that really matters,” might be the message that Mormonism would have you believe. All the injustices, inequities, and problems of our short mortal existence will be resolved after we die. As a matter of fact, a believer should concentrate his or her thoughts on the life that comes afterwards because that is where all the really important stuff happens. While a belief in life after death is not too troublesome in itself, the focus that Mormons place upon preparing for that supposed next life is. Believers are encouraged to devote all of their time, talents, and energies in building up the Church and in preparing for the next world, often leading them to reject or lose interest in the problems of regular day to day living. (you see this primarily in the emphasis upon Temple Work – including baptism for the dead).

I recognize that you may object to my characterization of Mormon values in this way. However, I think that there are clear instances of these values playing themselves out within Mormonism – especially when they are left to run unchecked. A recent example of these sorts of things in action can be found in Krakauer’s book, “Under the Banner of Heaven” which accurately describes how an active Mormon member took these values to heart and wound up murdering a woman and her infant child because he felt that God had commanded him via a prophet to do so. Such violence has not been isolated to a few instances either. Mormon history is checkered with lots of such violence including the brutal massacre of over 100 unarmed settlers whose primary crime was that they were non-believers passing through Utah (called the Mountain Meadows Massacre). The history of violence alone should be sufficient to bring any honest investigator of Mormonism to have some concerns about what it is teaching its members.

But, there’s more than just these bits of religiously-inspired violence, however. Utah leads the nation in anti-depressant usage – especially among women – perhaps indicating a higher than normal rate of clinical depression. So too, the rate of teen-age suicide is much higher in Utah than it is in other states. Also, there are strong indications of higher rates of child abuse within the Mormon corridor. (I encourage you to Google up the facts on these things if you want more information).

Granted, correlation is not causation, but I am of the opinion that all the benefits the Mormon-lifestyle offers its adherents can be garnered without the oppressive and potentially dangerous belief apparatus that it encourages. Whenever and wherever you have believers killing others in the name of their religious faith, I believe that you have a strong case that something within that faith is potentially harmful.

Jack

26th January 2004, 04:29 PM

This post is by RandFan

Troylus,

I am quite familiar with all of the points that you have made. I have considered them in the past in one form or another and I would like to respond.

#1 As it relates to Church doctrine you are correct. While this is significant it is misleading to suggest that Mormons are "ignorant". Many of my friends and associates are professionals including doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc. Mormons by and large embrace science and knowledge. Mormons are encouraged to gain education and seek knowledge. My father who is a devout Mormon instilled in me a love of science. He also took opportunities to teach us about geology, physics and many other things. Amongst his heroes were Madame Currie, Nicholas Tesla, Ben Franklin and Edison. My father was an armature geologist and he taught me about the formation of rocks and minerals. Hardly and ignoramus blindly ignorant to science or knowledge.

One of my youth leaders was a professor at the University of Utah. He was a brilliant man who happened to have a strong "testimony". When he found out that I did not qualify for the advance placement class for Computer Science at my High School he set aside an hour a week for several months to teach me binary code, basic programming, logic, heuristics, etc. No one ever discouraged me from learning science, history or anything.

In the interest of honesty and to support in part your contention, There have been times when individuals encouraged me not to delve too deeply into matters that contradicted church doctrine.

#2 An unequivocal Yes and No. While Mormons are discouraged from being “disobedient” and are asked to take a number of concepts on faith they are also taught to use common sense and logic to solve many complex and simple problems.

I would say that there is a dichotomy. Those areas that the Church takes claim over such as doctrine and delineated behavior, members are to be obedient

“Obedience is more important than sacrifice”
-- Jeremiah 7:22

In everything else members are to use reason and common sense

“…it is an unwise and slothful servant who has to be commanded in all things.
--Doctrine and Covenants.

Mormons are counseled to think through problems and not just ask God for a solution.

When you have a problem, work it out in your own mind first. Ponder on it and analyze it and meditate on it…
--Elder Boyd K. Packer

As I said earlier I do not fear Mormonism since I teach my children those things that are contrary to what I think is in there best interest. Children taught to think objectively and critically should have none of the problems that you attribute to Mormonism.

#3 (see #1) I would say, only in specific areas. While these “specific” areas are significant it is misleading to suggest that Mormons only accept supernatural explanations for natural occurrences.

#4 Again, there is some truth to this. But the picture you paint is in my opinion exaggerated. I was happy as a Mormon. Most Mormons that I know are no more or less happy than non-Mormons. Most Mormons I know go to sporting events, movies, dinner, etc, etc. Anecdotal but until I see data that contradicts my experiences I will have to rely on them.

But, there’s more than just these bits of religiously-inspired violence, however. Utah leads the nation in anti-depressant usage – especially among women – perhaps indicating a higher than normal rate of clinical depression. So too, the rate of teen-age suicide is much higher in Utah than it is in other states. Also, there are strong indications of higher rates of child abuse within the Mormon corridor. (I encourage you to Google up the facts on these things if you want more information). First, and don’t take this personally, I don’t “google” to find data to support a contention made by others. If I make a claim I back it up. I don’t expect others to do my work for me and I don’t do it for others.

I am familiar with some of your claims and I won’t dismiss them out of hand. However you have two problems.

1.) To prevail in your argument you must show that the problems you cite are caused primarily from the Mormon religion and not other factors.

2.) Assuming that can succeed with #1, you must then show that these negative aspects of the religion are more detrimental to the people than the positive ones are positive. In other words you need to show a statistically significant net negative.

…but I am of the opinion that all the benefits the Mormon-lifestyle offers its adherents can be garnered without the oppressive and potentially dangerous belief apparatus that it encourages. You offer an opinion about facts not in evidence. You have not demonstrated through empirical or other demonstrable evidence that the Mormon-lifestyle encourages an “oppressive and potentially dangerous belief apparatus.”

While I will respect your opinion you will need to be show,

1.) How individuals can achieve the benefits of Mormon lifestyle while not being Mormon. (I am very interested in this since I have honestly missed much about the “Mormon Lifestyle”)

2.) That the Mormon-lifestyle encourages an “oppressive and potentially dangerous belief apparatus”.

Whenever and wherever you have believers killing others in the name of their religious faith, I believe that you have a strong case that something within that faith is potentially harmful. So, if atheists in the former Soviet Union or People’s Republic of China kill millions of non-atheists in the name of atheism then there is a strong case that something within atheism is potentially harmful.

I think this line of logic is flawed. It would seem that any philosophical, political or ideological construct is potentially harmful. To what degree do other factors play apart of that “harm”?

Hell, hangliding and parachuting are potentially harmful. So is riding a bike.

The question remains, is Mormonism demonstrably more detrimental to its constituents than it is beneficial.

I am not closed minded to the possibility. I have changed my mind in the past and particularly on this forum when I was shown wrong. But to change my mind I am going to have to see data that contradicts my own experience and intuition.

I am going to have to let you have the last word on this. This really is more than I wanted to involve myself in the forum. Which is the reason I don't have a user name in the first place.

I promise to read any response and I want you to know that I respect your opinion. Thank you for taking the time to post your side of the issue.

In the end we can both agree that Mormonism is based upon a lie. That is certainly enough reason for anyone to steer clear of it if they so choose.

RandFan

Mike D.

26th January 2004, 05:00 PM

For those who might have missed it when I posted this link to it in a recent thread, here is the testimony of a guy who converted to Mormonism at age 16, was a happy and enthusiastic Mormon for a number of years, and then critically examined and left his faith. He ultimately became a fundamentalist Christian. It might be argued that he exhibited excellent critical thinking skills in examining Mormonism, but didn't take these skills further.

http://www.utlm.org/testimony/davemctestimony.htm

Troylus

26th January 2004, 06:19 PM

Randfan,

Although I believe that I can gather significant evidence to support my earlier claims, I first want to ask for a bit of clarity. You see, I find it interesting that you don't seem particularly compelled in the well-documented cases of religiously-motivated murder that pepper the history of the Mormon Church as evidence of the danger inherent in the faith.

Why is that?

Your analogy regarding Soviet communism clearly doesn't apply because we (hopefully) can both agree that the communism as practiced under the Soviets was primarily a negative thing (as evidenced by a great many events - including the murders under Stalin et al.) Indeed, I think that those dark blemishes upon Soviet history count as evidence that the communist "Religion of the State" was potentially dangerous to its people.

So, shouldn't the murders boldly committed in the name of Mormonism reflect upon the dangers inherent in the faith of Mormonism?

If not, why not?

Jack

26th January 2004, 08:14 PM

I hadn't planned on responding but then I hadn't expected a question.

"Every time I try to get out they pull me back in."
--Michael Corleone

I appreciate your tone and I am willing to take this a bit farther but there is a limit. We will see. One more thing, I sometimes come of as condescending. It is not intended and I will try and avoid sounding as such.

Originally posted by Troylus
...I find it interesting that you don't seem particularly compelled in the well-documented cases of religiously-motivated murder that pepper the history of the Mormon Church as evidence of the danger inherent in the faith.

Why is that? How many people have lived under Mormonism?
How many people have killed as a direct result of Mormonism?
Factoring out various pathologies and other factors that would have led to the deaths asside from Mormonism, what is the ratio of murderers to Members?
What is the ratio of murderers to average citizens?

Your analogy regarding Soviet communism clearly doesn't apply... You have missed my point.

Let's look at your argument again.

Whenever and wherever you have believers killing others in the name of their religious faith, I believe that you have a strong case that something within that faith is potentially harmful. What are we talking about here? People killing other people.

Why did these people kill? You lump them all together and place all of the motivation for the killing on the religion. But has that truly been established? Did any of these individuals have other reasons to kill beside religion? Was religion merely a pretext in some of the incidents? Could greed, hatred, bigotry, jealousy, envy or many of the other many reasons be a part? If yes, to what degree?

Let me ask you this question, if a person kills someone and then says that it was voices in his head, do we take it for granted that it was voices in his head? If someone murders his neighbor and says that it was because of religion doe we take that at face value or do we look at other factors?

I do not necessarily blame atheism for the deaths committed by the communists. Nor do I simply blame communism. Humans are complex and the reasons they take human life are often also complex.

It is human nature to want simple answers to complex problems. And while it is fair to consider the role that religion plays in these deaths, to simply state that being a Mormon is inherently dangerous because in the past Mormons have killed ostensibly for religious reasons is specious.

To prevail in such an argument you would have to demonstrate that there is a statistically significant greater number of murderers in the Mormon Church than there are non Mormon murderers.

So, shouldn't the murders boldly committed in the name of Mormonism reflect upon the dangers inherent in the faith of Mormonism?

If not, why not? "Boldly?" "Reflect upon the dangers?"

I'm not sure what that means. How about, do the Murders that appear to have been committed because of Mormonism demonstrate that being a Mormon is inherently more dangerous than not being a Mormon?

I honestly don't know. I seriously doubt it. Lots of non-Mormons murder. If the murder rate of Mormons is statistically significantly higher than non-Mormons then perhaps. Do you have those murder rates?

And inherently more dangerous than what? As I said before, riding a bike is dangerous.

I am, to say the least, skeptical of your position. I can assure you that I will need more hard data before I warn my children to stay away from Mormonism because of its inherant dangers.

Troylus

26th January 2004, 09:45 PM

Perhaps I can best illustrate my position regarding the dangers of Mormonism by positing a further question or two.

First, let me clarify that I don't believe that the murder rate among Mormons is higher than it is among the populace at large. I have seen no data to that effect and do not make that assertion.

I do claim, however, that the value system encouraged by Mormon belief can (under proper conditions) contribute to violent behavior. My contention is that certain tenets of Mormon belief - especially those that encourage an over-reliace upon ecclesiastical authority and those that encourage intolerance of non-believers - can and have been a major contributing factor in episodes of profound violent behavior.

I further assert that, in the absence of these unique Mormon teachings, these episodes of violence would not have taken place. My claim is that Mormonism was the necessary ingredient that allowed normal people to murder in the name of their religion. Had there not been the religion, these specific murders would not have taken place.

I recognize that this is a bold claim, but I believe that in the murders to which I refer, the historical evidence supports me. I recognize that attributing causes to violence is a very difficult thing to do - but I also believe that we can continually evaluate them in terms of: "How much was Mormonism at the heart of these actions?", "In the absence of specific Mormon beliefs, would these things have been as likely to occur?"

Here are some murders which would probably not have taken place were Mormonism not involved:

The Mountain Meadows Massacre: 128 Men, Women, and Children were killed in cold blood by Mormons who acted upon the instructions of their ecclesiastical leaders. John D. Lee who was tried and executed for the crime said this:

"I had many to assist me at the Mountain Meadows. I believe that most of those who were connected with the Massacre, and took part in the lamentable transaction that has blackened the character of all who were aiders or abettors in the same, were acting under the impression that they were performing a religious duty. I know all were acting under the orders and by the command of their Church leaders; and I firmly believe that the most of those who took part in the proceedings, considered it a religious duty to unquestioningly obey the orders which they had received. That they acted from a sense of duty to the Mormon Church." (...Life and Confessions of John D. Lee..., p. 213)

The murder of Henry Jones and his Mother
As described in a legal affidavit of Nathaniel Case- apparently by Bishop Charles Hancock and a group of men. The reputed charge was apostacy.

The night prior to the murder a secret council meeting was held in the upper room of Bishop Hancock's house; saw Charles Hancock, George W. Hancock, Daniel Rawson, James Bracken, George Patten and Price Nelson go into that meeting that night.... About 8 o'clock in the evening of the murder the company gathered at Bishop Hancock's... They said they were going to guard a corral where Henry Jones was going to come that night and steal horses; they had guns.
"I had a good mini rifle and Bishop Hancock wanted to borrow it; I refused to lend it to him. The above persons all went away together... Next morning I heard that Henry Jones and his mother had been killed. I wnet [sic] down to the dug-out where they lived... The old woman was laying on the ground in the dugout on a little straw, in the clothes in which she was killed. She had a bullet hole through her head... In about 15 or 20 minutes Henry Jones was brought there and laid by her side; they then threw some old bed clothes over them and an old feather bed and then pulled the dug-out on top of them....
"The next Sunday after the murder, in a church meeting in Payson, Charles Hancock, the bishop, said, as to the killing of Jones and his mother he cared nothing about it, and it would have been done in daylight if circumstances would have permitted it.-- This was said from the stand; there were 150 or 200 persons present. He gave no reason for killing them. And further saith not.
Nathaniel Case.
"Sworn to and signed before me this 9th day of April, 1859.
John Cradlebaugh,

Rather than go on and on, I'll link you to a starting place for more information. Similar murders from the time of Brigham Young can be found here:

http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/blood.htm

But, more modern murders and violence have continued to be inspired by Mormonism. Krakauer's book that I referred to earlier chronicles many of them, but focuses mostly upon the Dan Lafferty case. Here's a bit from a news report as to what Dan, himself, thought of the book:

Convicted killer Dan Lafferty says he considers the new book "Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith" to be a part of God's plan for him to spread his "strange revelation."
Lafferty said he considers Krakauer's just-released book, "Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith," to be a part of God's plan for him to spread his "strange" revelation.
On Tuesday at the Utah State Prison, Lafferty reiterated in an interview with KSL Newsradio 1160 that he slashed the throats of his sister-in-law and her 15-month-old daughter 19 years ago — on July 24, 1984 — in a "quest for truth" and as part of "understanding God."
Lafferty gives Krakauer's book a rave review, although the book has received mixed reviews from major publications. And the book has rankled leadership at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
"I got a chance to read it. I liked it a lot," Lafferty said in the interview with KSL.

From July 2, 2003 Deseret News

There are many, many more instances of violence in which Mormonism was a central cause of the action, but I think this small smattering helps to make the case that Mormonism has the potential to inspire some people to violence.

If you like, I can continue with similar such evidence to support my assertions that Mormonism is likely to play a signficant role in the higher than normal statistical rates of depression, teen-age suicide, domestic violence, and child abuse in Utah.

I will admit, however, that I cannot establish a definitive causal link between any of these things. I cannot prove that Mormonism leads to higher rates of depression, suicide, and so on. I can only show you that Mormonism is the dominant religion with the greatest influence in Utah where these statistics were gathered and draw the tentative conclusion that it is a significant factor in these observations.

But, neither can anyone establish a definitive causal link that Nazi policies and propaganda led inexorably to the genocide of millions of Jews. All we can do is examine statistics, recorded events, testimony of witnesses, and other such data to arrive at an estimate of the most likely proximate cause.

Jack

27th January 2004, 12:10 AM

Troylus
First, let me clarify that I don't believe that the murder rate among Mormons is higher than it is among the populace at large. I have seen no data to that effect and do not make that assertion. This would seem central to the debate.

So, you are saying that statistically Mormons are no more or less to commit murder than anyone else?

I do claim, however, that the value system encouraged by Mormon belief can (under proper conditions) contribute to violent behavior. To bolster your claim you cite anecdotal accounts and say they are significant while maintaining that there is no data that would show Mormons to be more likely to commit murder in any measurable way.

My contention is that certain tenets of Mormon belief - especially those that encourage an over-reliace upon ecclesiastical authority and those that encourage intolerance of non-believers - can and have been a major contributing factor in episodes of profound violent behavior. I don't argue this point. Perhaps we are not communicating. I agree that teachings of the Mormon Church can lead to violence and intolerance. But this is so vague as to be almost meaningless. Humans engage in many activities religious and secular that have been major contributing factors in episodes of profound violent behavior.

Should I encourage my child to avoid any and all such behaviors and activities?

I further assert that, in the absence of these unique Mormon teachings, these episodes of violence would not have taken place. How many episodes? Are they statistically significant?

I know of someone who died in a plane, does that make flying in a plane dangerous?

It is irrational to alter behavior based upon anecdotal evidence. Yet you yourself admit that there is no statistically significant difference between Mormons and non-Mormons.

My claim is that Mormonism was the necessary ingredient that allowed normal people to murder in the name of their religion. Had there not been the religion, these specific murders would not have taken place [list=1]
How many murders were a result of Mormonism?

Have you looked at each account with a critical mind and eliminated any other factors?[/list=1]

Being a skeptic I question such assertions. I just don't accept off the cuff claims.

You have not yet provided any significant data to support your contention that my children are at a greater risk of harm by being associated with the Mormon Church which I believe is the crux of this discussion.

There are many, many more instances of violence in which Mormonism was a central cause of the action, but I think this small smattering helps to make the case that Mormonism has the potential to inspire some people to violence. Yes, you are right. But Then I have agreed with that from the beginning.

This is not the debate however.

Furthermore, Mormonism is not alone. I can make the case that many things have the potential to inspire some people to violence.

[list=1]
Money
Marriage
Little League Baseball
High School Sports
Fatality in a fistfight raises debate over parental behavior at youth sporting events. (http://search.csmonitor.com/durable/2000/07/14/p2s1.htm)
[/list=1]

The question is, are these activities, which are demonstrably potentially to cause harm worth the risk?

I say yes. Furthermore I say there is no evidence that an individual is statistically significantly in more danger by being a Mormon than not.

But, neither can anyone establish a definitive causal link that Nazi policies and propaganda led inexorably to the genocide of millions of Jews. All we can do is examine statistics, recorded events, testimony of witnesses, and other such data to arrive at an estimate of the most likely proximate cause. Poor example.

First, there has been at least one trial in which significant data was given to show that ALL of the Jews died as a direct result of Nazi policies and propaganda. In addition there are mountains of evidentiary data including the Nazi's own writings and records.

So there is no reasonable argument to refute the fact that millions died as a result of those policies. Nor is there any reasonable argument to refute the fact that 50%, that is one half of all European Jews were murdered.

Second, I do not claim that Mormon policies have never lead to murder, depression, suicide, etc. My only contention is that the numbers of deaths, tragic as they are, are not statistically significant when compared to the number of murders committed by non-Mormons.

Let's put this into simple math.

If you were a Jew living in Europe just prior to and during WWII your odds of being murdered were 1 in 2.

If you are a Mormon you are in danger because some Mormons have killed other people. You don't know how many, you don't know what the rate is; you just know that there is danger. Furthermore you claim that this danger is greater than any potential benefit that could be derived by being a Mormon.

As far as the depression, suicide, etc. If you feel that the data can show that being a Mormon is statistically worse than any benifits that are inherent to Mormonism then I would be happy to look at it. I am familiar with much of it and I will happily agree with it, dispute it or put it into context as is necassary.

I will leave the decision up to you.

Troylus,

You have only managed to cite anecdotal examples. You want me to make a decision based upon conjecture and specious argument. I'm not going to do that. I hope that you can respect my refusal to do so.

Having been raised a Mormon I am entitled to draw upon my own anecdotal evidence.

I am not intransigent however. If and when you can give me sufficient evidence as to convince me that it is statistically significant more dangerous to be a Mormon than not and that this danger is not mitigated by the benefits offered then I will change my mind and not before.

Please note the "statistically significant" part of that paragraph. To have a fear that is based only upon anecdotal evidence is irrational.

Troylus

27th January 2004, 09:04 AM

You'll please forgive me if I'm a bit flummoxed by your position, Randfan. Help me understand precisely what is is that you believe.

As I understand it, you appear to be saying that you agree that Mormonism is founded upon lies and deception. You also agree that there exists the potential for harm and do not deny that Mormonism has been the primary catalyst in many episodes of violence. You also appear to agree that Mormonism can contribute to higher instances of depression, suicide, and various forms of domestic violence.

But then you claim that it is relatively harmless. The lie isn't really hurting anyone - at least not in a broad statistical sense.

I've met others within Mormonism who feel much the same way as you do. They recognize that Mormonism is a fraud and yet they also feel that there is no harm in perpetuating that fraud.

At a minimum, I would expect you to at least be concerned about the basic cost to benefit ratio of perpetuating Mormonism. After all, as I'm sure you know, the Mormon kingdom is very wealthy as the result of tithes. Tithes, which I think you must agree, have been collected under fraudulent terms.

If you'll forgive me, I can't quite understand how it is that you can say that Mormonism is a lie on the one hand and then claim that it is an essentially harmless one on the other.

Do you have similar feelings regarding other common topics of skepticism such as psychics, alternative medicine, crystal healing, and so on? These things also are predicated upon lies, and - like Mormonism -, one of their most obvious societal harms is that they collect money from their believers under false premises.

I guess what I'm getting at here is, are you the least concerned about truth and teaching your children the difference between fact and fantasy or do you abscribe to some other moral principle such that discerning truth is not particularly important?

Troylus

27th January 2004, 09:33 AM

A follow up on Depression:

First, I admit that a direct causal relationship between the higher rates of anti-depressant usage in Utah and the predominant religion can not readily be established. I do think, however, that the high correlation between the two things speaks to a possible - even probable link.

You criticized me earlier for encouraging you to investigate things like this on your own. I'll reproduce below just one article which speaks to this topic - but you'll please forgive me that if I leave further research up to you.

Study Finds Utah Leads Nation in Antidepressant Use
Some point to the pressures of Mormonism, especially for women, to explain the surprising findings

Los Angeles Times/February 20, 2002
By Julie Cart
Salt Lake City -- Doctors here have for years talked about the widespread use of antidepressants in the state. But there was no hard evidence until a national study that tracked drug prescriptions came to an unexpected conclusion:

Antidepressant drugs are prescribed in Utah more often than in any other state, at a rate nearly twice the national average.

Utah's high usage was cited by one of the study's authors as the most surprising finding to emerge from the data. The study was released last summer and updated in January.

Other states with high antidepressant use were Maine and Oregon. Utah's rate of antidepressant use was twice the rate of California and nearly three times the rates in New York and New Jersey, the study showed.

Few here question the veracity of the study, which was a tabulation of prescription orders, said Dr. Curtis Canning, president of the Utah Psychiatric Assn. But trying to understand the "why" has puzzled many, he said.

"The one true answer is we don't know," said Canning, who has a private practice in Logan. "I have some hunches.

"In Mormondom, there is a social expectation--particularly among the females--to put on a mask, say 'Yes' to everything that comes at her and hide the misery and pain. I call it the 'Mother of Zion' syndrome. You are supposed to be perfect because Mrs. Smith across the street can do it and she has three more kids than you and her hair is always in place. I think the cultural issue is very real. There is the expectation that you should be happy, and if you're not happy, you're failing."

The study did not break down drug use by sex. But according to statistics from the National Institute of Mental Health, about twice as many women as men suffer from depressive disorders.

Discussion of the issue inevitably falls along Utah's traditional fault lines. Some suggest that Utah's unique Mormon culture--70% of the state's population belongs to the church--requires perfection and the public presentation of a happy face, whatever may be happening privately. The argument goes that women in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are beset by particular pressures and are not encouraged to acknowledge their struggles.

Helen Wright, 71, of Taylorsville, Utah, has been using various antidepressant drugs for 20 years and says she's never had problems getting prescriptions.

"Look around, you can easily find people who take them. I think it's the cultural environment," said Wright, whose three grown children also take antidepressants. "Most men here would just as soon their wives take pills than bother to delve into the problems, and maybe find out they might have something to do with the problems."

Not so, says Fred M. Riley, commissioner of LDS Family Services. The church maintains 10 offices in Utah staffed with licensed counselors. Riley said he has heard the various explanations of the study but he dismisses suggestions that the Mormon religion imposes any expectation of perfection.

"The fact that the church has established family services shows they care about the emotional side of members," Riley said. "In fact, the LDS population is more open to getting help and getting things fixed."

Utah's large families--the biggest in the nation according to the 2000 Census--are often cited as a contributing factor to depression, again, largely among women. Others call the "harried housewife" explanation the stuff of urban legend.

"The question I would raise is whether there is any evidence that a high level of social demand predicts depression," said Amanda Barusch, a professor in the graduate school of social work at the University of Utah. "Who says that having six kids will make you depressed? There's no evidence in the literature that shows that. Stress is not the same as depression."

The study was conducted by Express Scripts Inc., a St. Louis-based pharmacy benefits management company, which tracked prescriptions of 24 drug types in about 2 million people selected at random from its 48 million members. Those studied were enrolled in privately managed health-care programs, and the information gleaned from the study is intended for use by HMOs. Medicare and Medicaid recipients were not included in the study.

Utah also leads the nation in the use of narcotic painkillers such as codeine and morphine-based drugs, the study found, and is ranked seventh in total prescriptions overall. Kentucky ranked first.

The study was the first national survey that examined regional trends in drug use. The information in the "Prescription Atlas," as the study is called, has made little impact here since its publication.

No official interviewed in Utah's mental health or substance abuse agencies had much notion as to what the study says about Utah's mental health.

"To be honest with you, I don't have a clue," said Randy Bachman, director of the Utah Division of Mental Health. Bachman was not in his current job when the study was released. While the results speak for themselves, he added, interpreting why antidepressants are in high use is a thorny matter.

State officials say the study's results could indicate that this is an enlightened society in which depression and mental illness are destigmatized. In such a social climate, they say, more people are willing to seek help and, eventually, are prescribed drugs.

"That's certainly a plausible explanation," said Emily Cox of Express Scripts, one of the five authors of the study. "There's a lot of inferences being drawn from this. We can't say if there is a higher probability for depression or depressive symptoms. You may have a population that seeks care for less severe symptoms. You may have a medical community that prescribes more readily."

Cindy Mann, who lives in Logan, said after 15 years of taking antidepressants and not feeling better, she finally quit in July. Today she encourages others to do likewise, but she's pessimistic.

"It's like Happy Valley here," she said, describing the Salt Lake Valley. "It's a scary place sometimes. People don't talk about their problems. Everything is always rosy. That's how we got ourselves into this mess--we're good at ignoring things."

So, the facts that are agreed upon here are that Utah leads the nation in anti-depressant usage - by a wide margin - and that Utah is predominantly Mormon.

Again, this does not establish a causal link, but the converse claim(that Mormonism does not encourage anti-depressant use) seems partially undermined by this study.

In my opinion, this is supports my earlier contention that Mormonism may contribute to depression.

Troylus

27th January 2004, 09:54 AM

A few more interesting notes.

(Again, not proof of a causal relationship between Mormonism and these observed statistics. But enough that I think one is justified in suspecting that something in Mormonism or within Mormon culture might be contributing to these things).

The incidence of sexual child abuse in Utah is 33% higher than national average. (National Association for the Protection of Children, ibid.)

Teen suicide rate in Utah is 3.5% higher than national average, second to that of Minnesota. (ibid)

The children of Utah are given more of the drug Ritalin than are those of any other state. "Utah uses more Ritalin per capita than any place on Earth." (The Denver Post wire service, 8/88, The Spotlight, 3/6/89)

Utah has a bankruptcy rate 3 times higher than the national average.(Deseret News, 4/3/88, p.A5 also The Salt Lake Tribune 7/19/90, Sec.B p.3)

Utah has a home foreclosure rate 4 times higher than the national average - 4.35% compared to 1.03 percent. (Deseret News, 3/24 & 25/87)

The amount of tax money spent per child for public education by the State of Utah is lowest in the nation. (NEA Today, p.8, Nov. 1990)

Child murder rate in Utah is 5 times higher than the national average. (The Denver Post, Empire Magazine, 11/21/82, p.30)

The American Medical Association reported in 1986 that Utah ranked 3rd in the nation in the use of Amphetamines and jumped to 2nd place in 1988. (Salt Lake Tribune, 8/31/89, p.B1)

Jack

27th January 2004, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by Troylus
You'll please forgive me if I'm a bit flummoxed by your position, Randfan. Help me understand precisely what is is that you believe.

As I understand it, you appear to be saying that you agree that Mormonism is founded upon lies and deception. You also agree that there exists the potential for harm...I have tried to be very clear. I'm sorry if I am failing at that.

Let me try again

Yes, there is a potential for harm. But there is a potential for harm in many activities that people engage in. So long as there is benefit that exceeds the potential for harm then I do not have a problem with it.

Skydiving, scuba diving, motorcycle racing, etc., etc., etc., etc., are dangerous. But they also provide benefits.

...and do not deny that Mormonism has been the primary catalyst in many episodes of violence. Please be careful not to put words in my mouth. I have asked you specific questions that you have failed to answer. I don't know to what extent Mormonism has played and how many episodes.

You are unable to provide me with hard data but seem to want me to make a decision based upon conjecture, why is that?

I accept that Mormonism has played a part in a given amount of violence. What I don't know is how much. Furthermore I don't know how much today.

I was not raised to hate or kill or be violent. Absent hard data I have to accept my own anecdotal evidence. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Skepticism and critical thinking demand that I not simply accept your assertions or the claims of others who might have motives to paint the church in a light that fits their agenda.

I have told you on more than one occasion that I am prepared to change my mind if you will present me with more than anecdotal data.

You also appear to agree that Mormonism can contribute to higher instances of depression, suicide, and various forms of domestic violence. Yes, but this can be said of many activities that humans engage in.

But then you claim that it is relatively harmless. The lie isn't really hurting anyone - at least not in a broad statistical sense. There is good and bad. If there was only harm then I would agree with you.

Let me repeat, if there were only harm then I would agree with you.

Having grown up a Mormon I know the great influence that it can be in a person’s life. Since any "harm" is not statistically greater than normal life, then the Mormon culture and way of life is good and worth the risk.

I've met others within Mormonism who feel much the same way as you do. They recognize that Mormonism is a fraud I take issue with this statement. Strong family values and 200 years of culture are not a "fraud". It is true that the beginnings and the spiritual teachings are false but the philosophy and culture are not necessarily a fraud.

...and yet they also feel that there is no harm in perpetuating that fraud. I'm for giving people information and letting them choose. If people want to believe Joseph Smith then I have no problem with that. My siblings and my wife's siblings are all successful, productive members of society. They have raised children who are productive members of society. They are happy, I'm fine with that.

At a minimum, I would expect you to at least be concerned about the basic cost to benefit ratio of perpetuating Mormonism. After all, as I'm sure you know, the Mormon kingdom is very wealthy as the result of tithes. Tithes, which I think you must agree, have been collected under fraudulent terms. I'm not sure there is a prima facie case of fraud. If I want to join a gym or a club there are dues. If you want to be a Mormon there are dues. The dues are not without some compensatory benefit. I don't see a problem.

If you'll forgive me, I can't quite understand how it is that you can say that Mormonism is a lie on the one hand and then claim that it is an essentially harmless one on the other. That is not what I have said. I have said that it was founded on a lie. The community, the compassionate service, the support, and many of the other good things about the Mormon Church are not lies.

Do you have similar feelings regarding other common topics of skepticism such as psychics, alternative medicine, crystal healing, and so on? These things also are predicated upon lies, and - like Mormonism -, one of their most obvious societal harms is that they collect money from their believers under false premises. Any organization that provides benefits for its members that are greater than any risk or harm, I am in support of.

I do see a big difference between Mormonism and the other examples that you cite. Members of the church get real benefit for their money. I guess you know better than them what is in their best interest. I don't!

On the other hand, I have no problem with individuals educating Mormons as to the truth. I support JREF and other organizations that discredit scam artists who swindle others out of their money based solely on lies.

I guess what I'm getting at here is, are you the least concerned about truth and teaching your children the difference between fact and fantasy or do you ascribe to some other moral principle such that discerning truth is not particularly important? This is a very disappointing paragraph. I have written in my posts to you that I have educated my children about objectivity and critical thinking. I have introduced my children to this very site and have discussed skepticism and the difference between fact and fantasy. Jack is my son's user name not mine.

I'm not sure where else to go with this. You seem invested in my accepting your thesis without evidence. You will obviously believe what ever you want to. I have tried to answer your questions but after a number of posts you don't seem to understand me.

I will let you and others decide what to believe. I have made my points, chief being that Mormons are by and large good and decent people. That I value my time in the church and that I left because I came to the conclusion that it was not true.

You are free to make of that what you will.

Thank you for your time and responses.

RandFan

Jack

27th January 2004, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by Troylus
You criticized me earlier for encouraging you to investigate things like this on your own. I'll reproduce below just one article which speaks to this topic - but you'll please forgive me that if I leave further research up to you. Troylus,

This is a skeptics forum. If you make a claim then it is incumbant upon you to support that claim and not others. If this is a problem then perhaps JREF is not the right place for you. If you don't want to support your claims then don't but don't expect others to simply take your word for it and don't complain when others ask you to support your claim.

In my opinion, this is supports my earlier contention that Mormonism may contribute to depression. Not disputed. Are there any statistics that are converse to these or are there only negative statistics?

Troylus,

I suspect that there are other things that would paint Utah and Mormons in a better light. When I was a missionary I used to cary around paper clippings of such statistics like lower incidences of Cancer, Lower STD's, Lower divorce rates, etc. I don't know if these numbers still apply nor do I know their accuracy being that it was 20 years since I was on my mission. I have heard that the divorce rate in Utah is actually higher than the national average but I don't know if that is true.

I'm not certain that the stats you provide prove that being a Mormon is statistically worse than being a non-Mormon. You have only shown that individuals in Utah and probably Mormons suffer from specific problems that are unique to their culture. Hardly proof that being a Mormon is worse than not.

To take it further the stats that you provide do not prove that Mormons are more depressed only that they take more pills. This could mean more depression. It could mean that Mormons take more pills.

Do you look at such stats with a critical eye or do simply accept them on face value?

FWIW, I think that there is probably higher incidence of depression. I have acknowledged in the past that I disagree with a number of the Church's teaching and think those teachings can be harmful. On the other hand a number of the teaching are good and contribute to lower indcidence of smoking, drug abuse and alcoholism, etc.

Have you sought to find other statistics that would counter these?

http://www.behindzioncurtain.com/statistics/

"Utah students have the lowest rate of smoking and one of the lowest rates of drinking and abusing drugs."

I simply havent the time to do the research. I suspect that there is another side of the story. I'm wondering if you have the objectivity to find the truth or if you are simply going to accept the numbers that fit your world view?

In any event this has to be the last of my posts.

Troylus

27th January 2004, 01:43 PM

Personally, I think that the trouble we are having here is in what constitutes sufficient evidence to establish a claim.

I made the claim that, because of many of the values that Mormonism encourages coupled with the fact that the religious premises of Mormonism are demonstrably false, that the potential for harm to believing Mormons is genuine.

I followed this with some examples and statistics that support this claim as it relates to depression, violence, and suicide - but I also admitted that these events and these statistics do not prove it absolutely. The evidence is circumstantial and correlative, but not causal. I also encouraged you to investigate this further if it was of genuine interest to you.

You see this evidence as insufficient to establish grounds for my claim. But, at the same time, you grant that the premises are true (Mormonism is founded on false religious beliefs and that some of the values taught by Mormonism have the potential to do harm). But, you also feel that the benefits offered by Mormonism outweigh these potential (and not fully substantiated) dangers associated with Mormon belief.

I think that it a reasonably fair assessment of where we have been in this discussion.

In reviewing your most recent posts, I suggest that where we actually differ is in our respective estimations of what the benefits of believing in Mormonism are. You seem to have a pretty high opinion of the benefits and see much good - consequently in order to tip the scales you want a large summation of evidence to the contrary.

Is that a fair statement of your position?

I, on the other hand, can see very little that is uniquely good to Mormonism. In fact, I really can't see anything at all. Everything that Mormonism offers to its members I can see offered by other social programs or alternate methods. So, for me to feel that the evidence is sufficient to justify my claim that Mormonism is potentially harmful requires only the statistical correlation and the many documented cases of violence.

From my perspective, I really don't see that my criticisms of Mormonism are all that different than Randi's criticisms of Homeopathic Medicine, or Psychic Abilites, or whatever. Both Mormonism and Homeopathic medicine can be demonstrated to be founded upon lies.

I suggest that where you and I differ appears to be in how much latitude we are willing to give to the "Placebo Effect" in determining the value of a clearly false belief system.

Jack

27th January 2004, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by Troylus
Personally, I think that the trouble we are having here is in what constitutes sufficient evidence to establish a claim.

I made the claim that, because of many of the values that Mormonism encourages coupled with the fact that the religious premises of Mormonism are demonstrably false, that the potential for harm to believing Mormons is genuine. No argument

I followed this with some examples and statistics that support this claim as it relates to depression, violence, and suicide - but I also admitted that these events and these statistics do not prove it absolutely. The evidence is circumstantial and correlative, but not causal. I also encouraged you to investigate this further if it was of genuine interest to you. Fair enough

You see this evidence as insufficient to establish grounds for my claim. Well it depends on your claim. You have said over and over "the potential for harm". How much potential and how much harm?

I don't dispute that there is potential for harm.

But, at the same time, you grant that the premises are true (Mormonism is founded on false religious beliefs and that some of the values taught by Mormonism have the potential to do harm). But, you also feel that the benefits offered by Mormonism outweigh these potential (and not fully substantiated) dangers associated with Mormon belief.

I think that it a reasonably fair assessment of where we have been in this discussion. This is a fair statement.

In reviewing your most recent posts, I suggest that where we actually differ is in our respective estimations of what the benefits of believing in Mormonism are. You seem to have a pretty high opinion of the benefits and see much good - consequently in order to tip the scales you want a large summation of evidence to the contrary.

Is that a fair statement of your position? Close, I want a preponderance of evidence that Mormonism consists of a net detriment to its members.

I, on the other hand, can see very little that is uniquely good to Mormonism. In fact, I really can't see anything at all. Interesting, you would only count unique values. So if something provides a net positive to a person it is not worthy of consideration if the values are replicated in other systems.

Is this correct?

Everything that Mormonism offers to its members I can see offered by other social programs or alternate methods. I have yet to find a replacement, try as I might.

I remember a friend of mine from Australia who was bemoaning the fact that he missed his vegymite. Another friend reassured him that he could get some from the corner store.

"Just because it is called vegymite doesn't make it so" said my friend. Just because you can "see" other social programs filling this need doesn't mean that they do.

Isn't this to some extent subjective?

Take base jumping for example. One of the most dangerous sports on earth. The positive effects from base jumping can be experienced by other means.

Shouldn't sky diving, scuba diving, motorcycle riding be considered unnecessary since the positive effects of these activities can be found in less dangerous activities?

So, for me to feel that the evidence is sufficient to justify my claim that Mormonism is potentially harmful requires only the statistical correlation and the many documented cases of violence. I can't agree as to the "many documented cases of violence" for the reasons that I have stated. To be "harmful" there must be a statistical significant increase in the likely hood of harm or rate of violence. I wish there were some way that I could get you to see this.

From my perspective, I really don't see that my criticisms of Mormonism are all that different than Randi's criticisms of Homeopathic Medicine, or Psychic Abilites, or whatever. Both Mormonism and Homeopathic medicine can be demonstrated to be founded upon lies. From my perspective there is a huge amount of difference. The culture and community of the Mormon Church provides real and measurable benefits to its members. Homeopathic Medicine and Psychic Abilities do not.

I suggest that where you and I differ appears to be in how much latitude we are willing to give to the "Placebo Effect" in determining the value of a clearly false belief system. When I was in high school my house caught on fire. Members from the church gave us a place to stay, fed us, gave us clothes, helped clean up our house and comforted us during a difficult time in our lives.

Recently I spoke to an associate whose house had burned down. He was grateful to the Red Cross and other volunteers who helped but noted that these were strangers and there was a limit to which they could help. When I told him of my experience he replied that he wished that he had had the same.

I have a lifetime of such stories. Many memories that I cherish. These were not placebos. These were human beings who cared and provided a community.

I'm sorry that you see Mormons in such a cynical way. I respect your opinion but my life's experiences leads me to a different conclusion.

RandFan

cbish

29th January 2004, 04:58 PM

I am not mormon but my wife is a ferrel mormon. Her whole family is die in the wool; dad is the bishop. My wife is the only one of about 60 paternal grandchildren that is not an active member. Until I met my wife, I had no experience with LDS. It's definitely interesting being an outsider looking in.

I've had many interesting and excellent discussions with RandFan (what happened to your user name? why are you using your son's?). RandFan has been very helpful and informative. One thing that has always intrigued me, however, with both my wife, RandFan, and other ex-patriots is; even though they have left the church, there is still this undying defense of it. My experiences with people who have left their church is one of a bad divorce; bitterness, anger, vengence. Not with ex-mormons. They'll tell you why the church is wrong and why they left, but if I give a criticism then I always get a litany of positives from the same person who just told me what's wrong with it; i.e. great family life/ healthful living etc. That has always boggled me!

Troylus

30th January 2004, 08:32 AM

I have left the Mormon Church and, obviously, I am somewhat critical of it. I served a mission to Pusan Korea from '88 to '90 and my father is currently the Bishop in our home ward. All of my siblings and all of my wife's siblings remain active in the Church to one degree or another.

There is a recovery website for exmormons at www.exmormon.org where you can get an insight into the sorts of problems people face upon leaving Mormonism.

I've met several "less-active" Mormons like Randfan who recognize that the primary beliefs of the LDS Church do not withstand scrutiny, but who still have a certain fondness for its sense of community and social coherence.

My own opinion is that the ill foundations of Mormonism, coupled with its emphasis upon authoritarianism, is potentially harmful. Randfan feels differently and chooses to emphasize the positive communal aspects. Randfan considers me a "cynic", but I strongly suspect that if we were discussing some other similar religion, say that of the Jehovah's Witnesses, he would view things differently.

I note, with a bit of mild dismay, however, that Randfan is very much like others who have elected to remain semi-Mormon. They ask "what is the harm?" When you show them the documented evidence of potential harm, including a multitude of bloody historical events that required Mormonism as a catalyst, they merely repeat their litany, "but where's the harm?" Without providing any explanation as to why they don't think it is harmful for people to kill one another in the name of religion.

You can see this pattern in our recent discussion. I provided lots of instances and statistics that, at the very least, suggest that there may be some inherent dangers in Mormon belief. Higher incidence of depression, suicide, domestic violence, etc.

Randfan has replied only with personal anecdotes while simultaneously trying to shift the burden of proof over to me to demonstrably eliminate all potential positives.

I submit that Randfan and other semi-Mormons cannot counter the evidence suggesting harm in any meaningful way. They insist that there are positives to Mormonism, but cannot produce significant evidence that believing in Mormonism makes you any better off than not believing in it. Lots of anecdotes, yes, but no meaningful counter-balancing facts.

Instead, as James Randi notes about those who support Homeopathy, the believers need their crutch and thereby don't weigh the scales equally.

I don't think that Mormonism is a thoroughgoing evil, mind you. I believe it is a mixed bag with some social benefits, but ultimately I think that its net effect upon its believing membership is negative and not positive.

Again, check out www.exmormon.org to see the ongoing and long-term effects of Mormonism upon people.

cbish

30th January 2004, 11:22 AM

Fondness is a good description. Randfan once explained that being mormon is all encompassing. Every aspect of life is tied to church in some manner. Therefore, there is a heavy emotional investment that is hard to sever.

As I mentioned earlier, I think I have a unique perspective being a nonmember looking in.

Troylus wrote:
Mormon belief encourages its members to be .........and provides them with a tightly-knit social coherence – complete with service-oriented friends and family

I have somewhat of a problem with this statement. This statement is true for it's members. For the rest of society it's not true (unless there's the prospect of baptism). This is the number one problem I have with the church. I don't like the social isolationism that the church promotes. The "in this world but not of this world" quote summarizes this attitude. I think this goes well with your "ignorance v. knowledge, etc" post. That post is well articulated.

I told my wife about that post. She said she was interested in reading it. I even printed it out. It's still sitting on our dining room table. (fondness, I guess).

Marc

30th January 2004, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by cbish
This is the number one problem I have with the church. I don't like the social isolationism that the church promotes. The "in this world but not of this world" quote summarizes this attitude. I think this goes well with your "ignorance v. knowledge, etc" post. That post is well articulated.

This does seem to be a nature of the church. In the history given in Under the Banner of Heaven they twice tried to establish their own community. Both times neighbors had trouble with their isolationist ways, and tendency to vote uniformly. This does not excuse the abuse and attacks on the early church though. After the disaster of the first community they set up another one, even more isolated and self controlled.

Part of the move to Utah was the idea of setting up their own country, which fell through as the US expanded around them. Kind of brings to mind the compounds seen with cults and extreemist groups today. Setting up a seperate area where they can be with their 'own kind' (not to mention more under control of the groups leadership)

Jack

30th January 2004, 12:14 PM

I had not planned on posting any further but I am particularly troubled by a number of miss-characterization of my position as it relates to Mormonism in this post.

Originally posted by Troylus
My own opinion is that the ill foundations of Mormonism, coupled with its emphasis upon authoritarianism, is potentially harmful. I have noted over and over the potentially harmful nature of Mormonism.

I have also pointed out that there are other activities that are potentially harmful like skydiving and scuba diving that are also potentially harmful.

Troylus you have never explained why any inherent danger from Mormonism is more significant than these other activities. You have chosen to ignore my references to them as if I had never made them.

A number of important question has been left unanswered by you including, why is any potential harm which results from being a member of the church significant and potential for harm in other activities not?

Randfan feels differently and chooses to emphasize the positive communal aspects. Wrong, I have asked you before not to put words in my mouth.

I choose to weigh the positive aspects against the negative. In light of current data it is demonstrable t me that the positive aspects outweigh the negative ones.

I pointed out that this is somewhat subjective and asked you if you didn't agree. You have not responded.

Randfan considers me a "cynic", but I strongly suspect that if we were discussing some other similar religion, say that of the Jehovah's Witnesses, he would view things differently. Your suspicions are wrong. I lived in a Seventh Day Adventist community and worked in a company owned by Seventh Day Adventists. I would make the same assessment of them.

My next door neighbor as well as a business associate is a Jehovah's Witness and while I believe their to be potentially real harm to children I find the majority of their lives to be much like Mormonism.

I note, with a bit of mild dismay, however, that Randfan is very much like others who have elected to remain semi-Mormon. They ask "what is the harm?" I resent the flippant, rhetorical way you have represented my views.

I have asked in all candor, "can you show me demonstrable data that shows that being a member of the Mormon Church significantly statistically puts them at risk"

The only objective data that you have demonstrated is stats about depression and teen suicide. You have refused to admit that there could be (and likely is) data that would offset your stats.

In other words you pick and choose your data to conform to your world view. This is not objective or skeptical. Skepticism requires a willingness to question all data and consider all points of view.

When you show them the documented evidence of potential harm... You have done so without any context or counter data (lower incidence of drug abuse, alcoholism, etc.) or the willingness to acknowledge that there is a great probability of counter data.

...including a multitude of bloody historical events that required Mormonism as a catalyst... This is amazing that you continue to harp on this.

1.) You have only proven "potential harm". I have from the very beginning accepted that there is "potential" for harm. A "potential" for harm does not prove that one activity is more harmful than the other.

2.) You have admitted that the murder rates would unlikely show that there is a higher murder rate amongst Mormons than non-Mormons.

How can you possibly dismiss the significance of this?

...they merely repeat their litany, "but where's the harm?" Without providing any explanation as to why they don't think it is harmful for people to kill one another in the name of religion. Are you serious? This is such a blatant straw man.

I have said over and over that the documented albeit anecdotal examples of murders and the statistics of teen suicide, depression, etc. that you have provided are harmful and demonstrate a potential for harm.

Your examples do NOT prove that being a Mormon is more harmful.

You can see this pattern in our recent discussion. I provided lots of instances and statistics that, at the very least, suggest that there may be some inherent dangers in Mormon belief. Higher incidence of depression, suicide, domestic violence, etc. And I have agreed that you have shown that Mormonism has a potential for harm.

Why do you continue to misrepresent my position?

Randfan has replied only with personal anecdotes while simultaneously trying to shift the burden of proof over to me to demonstrably eliminate all potential positives. (emphasis mine)

This is so disappointing as to be maddening. I have done no such thing. I have asked you to explain why weighing positives against negatives is inappropriate to Mormonism as opposed to weighing positives against negatives in other activities.

Troylus, please stop characterizing my actions or beliefs. While it is completely fair to state what I have and have not stated it is wrong to miss-state my position.

I submit that Randfan and other semi-Mormons cannot counter the evidence suggesting harm in any meaningful way. In any meaningful way? How about the church’s welfare program? How about statistics that show a lower incidence of drug abuse and alcoholism?

They insist that there are positives to Mormonism, but cannot produce significant evidence that believing in Mormonism makes you any better off than not believing in it. Again, this is a misrepresentation of my position.

Being a member of the Mormon Church is demonstrably beneficial to many of its members. The church also has the potential to harm its members. Benefits are to some extent subjective and to some extent demonstrative. It is up to the individual to decide if the benefits outweigh the negatives of being a member of the Mormon Church just as it is up to an individual to decide if riding motorcycle is worth the risks inherent in that activity.

Lots of anecdotes, yes, but no meaningful counter-balancing facts. You have not proven with any degree of certainty that the Mormon Church is more harmful to its members than it is beneficial. The only thing that you have done is provided statistics that tend to show that there is potential negative consequence to being a member of the Mormon Church.

Instead, as James Randi notes about those who support Homeopathy, the believers need their crutch and thereby don't weigh the scales equally. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. There is no demonstrable benefit to Homeopathy. Homeopathy cannot be argued by any reasonable person to offer any benefit whatsoever to those who practice it.

Conversely, it is arguable that the Mormon Church does offer real and measurable benefits to its members.

I don't think that Mormonism is a thoroughgoing evil, mind you. I believe it is a mixed bag with some social benefits, but ultimately I think that its net effect upon its believing membership is negative and not positive. Please note that you have simply stated your opinion. I believe this opinion to be a result of a reasoned examination of the evidence. I can respect that.

You did not state that Mormonism has a demonstrable net effect on its members based on empirical evidence.

Reasonable individuals can disagree as to the net effect of Mormonism based on the data that has been supplied thus far. It is possible that there is sufficient data to show that Mormonism is more harmful to its members than beneficial. If it is you have yet to make that case.

Edited to add that the stats that you have provided do show that Mormons are more likely to suffer from depression, commit suicide and other things. I want to be clear about that. This data though is provided in a vacuum and does not take into account other data that demonstrates that there is data that demonstrates that in some instances it is safer to be a mormon.

cbish

30th January 2004, 02:04 PM

Marc wrote:
Setting up a seperate area where they can be with their 'own kind' (not to mention more under control of the groups leadership)

Funny you mention that. My in-laws have lived in a variety of places since my wife & I have been married; Washington, California, Florida. One thing I found strange when they lived in Washington was that all their neighbors where mormon. I naively thought 'what are the chances'. They lived in two areas in Calif. same thing. I finally figured it out. Mormons still congregate. In our town here, the mormons are pretty much confined to two or three neighborhoods.

Jack

30th January 2004, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by Marc
This does seem to be a nature of the church. In the history given in Under the Banner of Heaven they twice tried to establish their own community. Both times neighbors had trouble with their isolationist ways, and tendency to vote uniformly. This does not excuse the abuse and attacks on the early church though. After the disaster of the first community they set up another one, even more isolated and self controlled.

Part of the move to Utah was the idea of setting up their own country, which fell through as the US expanded around them. Kind of brings to mind the compounds seen with cults and extreemist groups today. Setting up a seperate area where they can be with their 'own kind' (not to mention more under control of the groups leadership) This is a good example of a double edged sword. Yes, isolationism has a number of negative aspects. But it has good ones, it is also quite natural.

I find it unfortunate that this behavior is only associated with "cults and extremists groups". Here in California we have China town, Korea town and many areas were people of like minds, culture and national origin congregate and by the way "vote uniformly". There are entire neighborhoods that only speak Spanish or Chinese or Armenian. These individuals are often distrustful of outsiders. And don't forget groups like the Amish and Gay comunities.

Tribalism is human nature. It is one of the aspects that has led to the success of the human species.

cbish

30th January 2004, 03:34 PM

Randfan wrote:
Tribalism is human nature

Yes but you & I have spoken about this before, remember? One contention I have is when a group describes or presents themselves one way when observation dictates them in another.

As a religious group, mormons would consider themselves charitable. I disagree. They are charitable to their own, but screw everybody else. As Jesus' chosen people, this doesn't seem very Christ-like. I've witnessed it first hand time & time again. You even said that the church really doesn't have the resources for that.

Jack

30th January 2004, 03:35 PM

that Randfan is very much like others who have elected to remain semi-Mormon I don't know what semi-Mormon is. I don't go to church. I don't pray. I don't read any Mormon literature or any religious literature for that matter. Furthermore I don't engage in any of the activities that I miss about the church. If I did and I were "semi-Mormon" (whatever that means) I wouldn't have a problem with it. My problem with your terminology is that it is only rhetorical and serves no real objective purpose but to divide individuals into groups, Mormon, semi-Mormon and self righteous elitists who know what's best for everyone else.

Some people are not content with objective discussion and respect of others opinion. They have to try and convert everyone to their way of thinking and belittle those who will not conform.

Jack

30th January 2004, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by cbish
As a religious group, mormons would consider themselves charitable. I disagree. They are charitable to their own, but screw everybody else. As Jesus' chosen people, this doesn't seem very Christ-like. I've witnessed it first hand time & time again. You even said that the church really doesn't have the resources for that. This isn't completely true. The church has a church wide program to get members to Red Cross blood drives. I had the responsibility to call people and remind them to go. Hardly a screw everybody else position. And this isn't the only example there are many.

It is true that there are finite resources. Before the 1960s the Church would provide welfare to non-Mormons but the program was stretched to the breaking point as so many individuals found out and availed themselves to those services.

and it is true that some Mormons truly believe that the Church should only help itself but those individuals are the exception and not the rule. The church has a program called "compassionate service". The program requires members to provide service to non-Members.

Please note that I have always freely admitted to many of the sins of the church and the lies and deceit. I have also freely told members and non-members alike that the church is not true. I have also criticized the church’s stance on masturbation, homosexuality, women's issues, sex education, and other issues. I have done so on this vary forum and to members of my family and friends.

Finally, I am not per se defending the Mormon church. I only seek to tell the truth. When people wholesale attack the church in a one sided manner I feel that it is appropriate to speak up. I will not be bullied into being silent or accepting any view in order to look good to members of this forum or members of the Mormon Church. I have an open and objective mind. I have moderated a number of views on this forum and I am willing to do so now. All anyone need do is show me by a preponderance of evidence that the church is more likely to cause harm than it is to benefit members.

Citing statistics while ignoring other factors is woefully short of producing a preponderance of the evidence.

Troylus

30th January 2004, 05:42 PM

I apologize Randfan if I seem to be deliberately misrepresenting your position. I admit, however, that I am still a bit perplexed by it.

You've asked for a preponderance of evidence to indicate that Mormonism might have a net detrimental effect.

Might I suggest that this criterion has been met (at least in this thread). I would be interested in an equivalent amount of similar data that would counter-balance the statistics on depression, suicide, violence, etc.

Just what benefits do you see? And, do you have data that, when summed, supports your position of Mormonism being a net positive?

cbish

30th January 2004, 06:23 PM

Randfan wrote;

Randfan wrote:

Randfan wrote: This isn't completely true. The church has a church wide program to get members to Red Cross blood drives. I had the responsibility to call people and remind them to go. Hardly a screw everybody else position.

Whoa!! Blow me down! Blood?!? Sounds like a PR move to me. And that's great! Remember, I gave the analogy that if you're mormon and your house burns down on friday, you'll be hosting Monday Night Football in you're new home. If not mormon, no mormon's around! I truly believe that! You STILL haven't changed my mind on that!

The church has a program called "compassionate service". The program requires members to provide service to non-Members.

I've never heard of this. Never seen it. I will look into this and will be very happy to verify this.

Please note that I have always freely admitted to many of the sins of the church and the lies and deceit. I have also freely told members and non-members alike that the church is not true. I have also criticized the church’s stance on masturbation, homosexuality, women's issues, sex education, and other issues. I have done so on this vary forum and to members of my family and friends.

Yes you have! You have been a very valuable resource on this board and I enjoy your posts.

Finally, I am not per se defending the Mormon church. I only seek to tell the truth. When people wholesale attack the church in a one sided manner I feel that it is appropriate to speak up.

WHY?? You're not a member! I understand setting the record straight but , with the exception that mormonism leads to murder, I don't see the "wholesale attacks as you see them. I don't understand your "fondness" for the church. Remember, I'm an outsider looking in. I had no opinion of mormonism until I met my wife. I had no preconceived notions, unlike someone who was raised in the church, as to what it was all about. My opinions are all contrived by years of observation and reflection. No, I didn't go on a mission, no I don't know religious doctrine, I only base my opinions from a clean slate of repeated observed behaviors. With all due respect Randfan, and I do like you and value your opinions on the subject, to a heathen like me, you come off as an apologist.

I will not be bullied into being silent or accepting any view in order to look good to members of this forum or members of the Mormon Church.

I don't think anyone here would expect you to. I have a problem with Troyus's depiction that mormonism has lead to violence. Not that it hasn't, but that there is an implication that that is the only reason. Personally, the ideas that lead to violence that he cites are not exclusive to mormonism. Conversely, mormonism doesn't have a monopoly on clean living and family values that ferrel mormons always run to to defend their "fondness".

Deep breath time....whooo!...Whoo! I love this discussion!!:D :D This is awesome. By the way, we're flying out to take my father-in-law bishop to the Daytona 500. Obviously, he can't go on Sunday but he can go the rest of the days!! I'll wait to have a beer until sunday.:D

Jack

30th January 2004, 07:43 PM

Originally posted by Troylus
I apologize Randfan if I seem to be deliberately misrepresenting your position. Apology accepted

I admit, however, that I am still a bit perplexed by it. And I am perplexed by that fact.

You've asked for a preponderance of evidence to indicate that Mormonism might have a net detrimental effect.

Might I suggest that this criterion has been met (at least in this thread). I don't think so. I don't think such a determination could be made so easily.

Could I ask if you have ever had a sociology course or a course in statistics or even logic?

You seem to have at least a rudimentary understanding of logic and critical thinking. Yet you are making some clasical mistakes when it comes to statistics. Simply citing one sided statistics to such a complex question is silly and meaningless.

I would be interested in an equivalent amount of similar data that would counter-balance the statistics on depression, suicide... (see below)

...violence, etc. Why do you continue to cite this? Your examples are anecdotal and you admit that the murder rate is probably the same with Mormons as non-Mormons.

You acknowledge that there might be no difference in murder rates between Mormons and non-Mormons.

This lack of a difference in murder rates is, by definition, demonstrative that your examples are statistically meaningless. They only show some Mormons to have a propensity to violence in conjunction with certain aspects of the Mormon church.

Please see: A Brief Introduction to Logic (http://www.hu.mtu.edu/~tlockha/h2700logic.htm) and Logic & Fallacies (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html)

Premise: Mormonism has been shown to be a direct contributing factor to murder.

Premise: The murder rate between Mormons and non Mormons is the same.

Inference: While Mormons sometimes commit murder as a direct result of being Mormon they must commit murder as a result of clasical motivations less than the national populace.

Conclusion: The murders caused as a direct result of Mormonism does not make Mormonism more dangerous.

If the murder rate truly is the same between Mormon's and non-Mormons (to be honest we have not established this) then the examples you cite are mitigated by lower incidences of murder in other areas.

What I don't understand is how you fail to grasp such a simple and straightforward fact?

Critical thinking should cause you to question your anecdotal evidence. It doesn't mean that you have to dismiss it; it just means that as of now you have not established that the examples demonstrate a net difference in harm. Otherwise the murder rate would have to be higher.

If you continue to state your anecdotal examples of murder to justify your claim then you are only arguing ad nauseam. Your argument is falacious on at least two counts.

Just what benefits do you see? It's frustrating that you ask this question after all that I have posted. Lower incidence of alcoholism, tobacco use and drug abuse, community, etc.

"Utah students have the lowest rate of smoking and one of the lowest rates of drinking and abusing drugs." (http://www.behindzioncurtain.com/statistics/)

American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol 108, Issue 5 357-366, Copyright © 1978 by Oxford University Press
Cardiovascular mortality in the State of Utah is among the lowest in the United States. The religion of 72% of the state residents (Mormon) proscribes the use of tobacco and alcohol; a large number of Mormons adhere to this proscription. This study analyzed the 6108 cardiovascular disease deaths between 1969--1971 in Utah of members in the Mormon Church. For both sexes, Mormons had 35% less mortality than expected from US rates for ischemic heart disease, while non-Mormons were not significantly different from US whites. These results support the relationship between cigarette smoking and mortality from cardiovascular disease. Mormon men also had lower mortality from hypertensive heart disease and Mormon women from rheumatic heart disease than non-Mormons in Utah.[/b]

And, do you have data that, when summed, supports your position of Mormonism being a net positive? May I rephrase?

I have data that when summed up calls into question the notion that Mormonism has a net detriment to Mormons.

I do not propose that I can substantiate that Mormonism is a net positive without significant research and serious analysis of ALL of the data. I would like to see peer review and I would like to see objective analysis of ALL of the data.

Why is that too much to ask? Do you ever read Randi’s commentary? He warns of simply accepting data that supports ones position. That is the very definition of skepticism.

Just because a statistic says that bran will lower cholesterol doesn’t mean that it will.

There are lies, there are damn lies, and there are statistics."

The LDS Church and Utah Statistics (http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/tagm/tagm14.html)

In 1980, Utah was ranked third in the nation in longevity. During that year, the death rate was 5.5 per 1,000 population (U.S. Statistical Abstract, p. 72).

Utah's live birth rate per 1,000 population is 27.3, nearly twice the U.S. average of 15.8 (U.S. Statistical Abstract, p. 59).

In 1981, Utah ranked 46th in fetal and infant mortality, with 9.8 deaths per 1,000 live births. The national average during this same year was 11.9 deaths per 1,000 live births (U.S. Statistical Abstract, p. 73).

In Utah, the violent crime rate (which includes murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault) is about one-half the national average. In 1983, Utah's murder rate was 3.5 per 100,000 population compared to the national rate of 8.3. During the same year there were 64 robberies committed per 100,000 in Utah versus 214 robberies as the national average (U.S. Statistical Abstract, p. 167).

In 1983, Utah had 77.43 out-of-wedlock births for every 1,000 live births, compared to the national average of 202.8 (Utah Dept. of Health, Statistics).
In 1983, Utah reported a syphilis rate of 3.7 per 100,000 population, about one-tenth the U.S. rate of 32.1.
During the same year, the Utah rate for gonorrhea was reported at 85.8 per 100,000 population, about one-fifth the national rate of 387.6 (Utah Dept. of Health, Epidemiology).

Furthermore, this does not even take into account any subjective reasons that one might have to being a member.

Troylus,

You are very dogmatic in your position. You claim that the data proves that it is more dangerous to be a Mormon than not being a Mormon. You don't cite how much, you simply know that it is more dangerous. This is astonishing. Would you make the same claim in any other area?

I on the other hand am not dogmatic. I accept-

[list=1]
That the Mormon Church is potentially Harmful
That there is data that supports the idea that teen suicide and rates of depression are higher in Mormons.
That my experiences are anecdotal and I am willing to change my mind if I am shown to be wrong.
[/list=1]

Jack

30th January 2004, 08:22 PM

Originally posted by cbish
Whoa!! Blow me down! Blood?!? Sounds like a PR move to me. It is the church's stated policy not to announce charitable programs publicly. You won't find any press release or any public statements. However, if you go to church you can ask how to sign up and you will be put on a list. You will then get a call once a month or as needed.

I called my Mother-in-law for some examples of compassionate service. This is what she told me.

Right now the stake relief society is making stuffed turtles for Paul Newman's hole in the wall gang. These are high quality hand stitched items.

Last month the stake relief society made quilts for a local battered woman's shelter. In addition the relief society provided clothes, toiletries and other personal items.

In November they had a toy drive for the Marines toys for tots program.

The relief society always gathers and distributes clothes for major disastors like earthquakes, floods and fires. These items are given directly to the red cross and other organizations with no requirements made as to membership in the church.

Remember, I gave the analogy that if you're mormon and your house burns down on friday, you'll be hosting Monday Night Football in you're new home. If not mormon, no mormon's around! I truly believe that! You STILL haven't changed my mind on that! I have helped move non-Mormons, clear brush, etc. I don't remember all of the incidents but there are plenty of examples.

No not everyone gets a new house but then how often do non-Member help Mormons?

I would say that Mormons help non-Mormons far more than the reverse.

I've never heard of this. Never seen it. I will look into this and will be very happy to verify this. That is fine,

BTW, though the church does not announce charitable program in traditional media they do cover such events in the Church News. Ask your family for a few copies. I could send you some if you like.

Yes you have! You have been a very valuable resource on this board and I enjoy your posts. That means allot to me. Thank you very much.

With all due respect Randfan, and I do like you and value your opinions on the subject, to a heathen like me, you come off as an apologist. If that is how you see me then that is fine.

Deep breath time....whooo!...Whoo! I love this discussion!!:D :D This is awesome. By the way, we're flying out to take my father-in-law bishop to the Daytona 500. Obviously, he can't go on Sunday but he can go the rest of the days!! I'll wait to have a beer until sunday.:D I'll let you on a little secret. My family never missed the Super Bowl. My father was always sick on that day and so we were forced to stay home. At least we had the game to keep us entertained.

What a coincidence. :)

Speaking of alcohol, I'm ready for a Rum and Coke.

Thanks cbish,

RandFan

Troylus

31st January 2004, 11:38 AM

I on the other hand am not dogmatic. I accept-

That the Mormon Church is potentially Harmful

That there is data that supports the idea that teen suicide and rates of depression are higher in Mormons.

Thank you.

This was my original and ongoing assertion (that there is a genuine potential for harm associated with Mormon beliefs) and that this point can be reasonably established.

You are very dogmatic in your position. You claim that the data proves that it is more dangerous to be a Mormon than not being a Mormon. You don't cite how much, you simply know that it is more dangerous. This is astonishing.

Actually, I don't think I've ever made this assertion. (At least not in the sense of it being more physically dangerous) I thought that I had been reasonably clear on this topic, but if it has come across in this manner, then I apologize and recant.

For clarity, I have stated that I am of the opinion that the net benefits of Mormonism are outweighed by the net detriments. Especially because I believe that the positive things that may arise out of Mormon belief (such as abstinence from some harmful substances and a sense of community) can readily be obtained without the potential negatives associated with Mormon beliefs. In this sense (and only in this sense) I believe that Mormonism is harmful to its believing membership.

I believe that many (but perhaps not most) of those who currently accept Mormonism would live more full and happier lives were they to abandon their beliefs and seek those few positives they get from Mormonism from other sources that are not burdened with the Mormon apparatus of false belief and potentially harmful values.

Since I think I have finally succeeded in getting these points across, I believe we are at an end.

Jack

31st January 2004, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by Troylus
For clarity, I have stated that I am of the opinion that the net benefits of Mormonism are outweighed by the net detriments. Especially because I believe that the positive things that may arise out of Mormon belief (such as abstinence from some harmful substances and a sense of community) can readily be obtained without the potential negatives associated with Mormon beliefs. In this sense (and only in this sense) I believe that Mormonism is harmful to its believing membership.

I believe that many (but perhaps not most) of those who currently accept Mormonism would live more full and happier lives were they to abandon their beliefs and seek those few positives they get from Mormonism from other sources that are not burdened with the Mormon apparatus of false belief and potentially harmful values.

Since I think I have finally succeeded in getting these points across, I believe we are at an end. That's fine, but to be fair I have said from the begining that there is potential for harm. I have also said on a number of occasions that I understood how you arrived at your opinion and that I respected it.

Thanks,

RandFan

cbish

31st January 2004, 04:13 PM

I'm very glad to here about those charitable contributions. I also have been told that the farther away you get from Utah, the more involved mormons are in the non-mormon community. Even my In-laws complained about the "Utah Mormons" when they lived in Pleasant Grove. Peter Jenkins brought up this point. He described a "different" mormon church in England than what I've witnessed here on the west coast. I remember east coast mormons corroberating his post.

how often do non-Member help Mormons?

I would say that Mormons help non-Mormons far more than the reverse.

I still completely disagree based on what I've observed. Basically, I would say that, if I'm helping someone clear brush, cut firewood etc, I wouldn't think to ask if they were mormon or not. It's irrelevent to me and to just about everyone. I still contend, though, that it does matter to mormons, or at least mormon's here on the west coast. I've seen the mormons here bend over backwards for their own kind, which is fine, but when I've suggested helping a non member, everytime I've been told that "they don't have time for that" ( unless there is a chance for baptism).

My family never missed the Super Bowl. My father was always sick on that day and so we were forced to stay home.

Boy, if you ask me, this is where everything went south!:D That satanic Super Bowl. Obviously the work of satan that lead you a-stray:D

I'm ready for a Rum and Coke.

Captain Morgan I presume.......

edit: PS; what happened to your user name?? Why do you have to use your sons?

Jack

31st January 2004, 09:12 PM

Originally posted by cbish
Boy, if you ask me, this is where everything went south!:D That satanic Super Bowl. Obviously the work of satan that lead you a-stray:D :) At least one contributing factor.

Seriously though, Mormons truly believe that sports on Sunday is the work of Satan trying to tempt believers from obeying god's word.

Funny, everyone justified *Steve Young's playing on Sunday. I shouldn't watch it but it was ok for Steve to play.

Captain Morgan I presume....... Bacardi white with a splash of Grenadine. I'm also a huge fan of Malibu but my wife hates the taste of Coconut.

edit: PS; what happened to your user name?? Why do you have to use your sons? Well, I was spending way too much time here. I'm an independant consultant and only get paid to complete projects. I'm passionate and tend to argue ad infinitum. This interferes with my responsibilites to my family.

I wish I was more disaplined and could ignore some posts. I love to discuss philosopy and politics.

As it is, if I tell my son to log off I can't log on since I don't have his password.

Thanks cbish,

Time for another R&C. it might be bad for me but to quote Mick Jager, "but I like it" Of course he was talking about rock and roll but what the hell. Sex, drugs and rock and roll. There are some benifits to not being an active member of the church. :) If you can't tell I'm on my happy hour.

Go Dallas! Oh **** its only the Patriots and Carolina, oh well its as good as an execuse to drink as any. We got wings, chips, and ribs. Who cares who wins.

*Mormon quarter back who played for the 49'rs.