Reorganized LDS

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by Archaea

...but boiled down to it, how many disbelievers adopt a more restrictive, more regimented moral belief system once they reject Mormonism? No, people may not seek licentious behavior at the outset of the path of disbelief, but ultimately their path leads them to lesss restrictions, fewer enabling restraints. Not everyone falls into that category, but whyis that? One reason is Mormonism is one of the more restrictive belief systems in existence, so anything else is less.

If we're going to define positive behavior as a willingness to live with restrictions, then maybe we ought to look to the Taliban for direction. The fact that you live with fewer restrictions than the Taliban does not make you morally inferior to them. There is nothing inherently noble about restrictions.

[Archaea]

Restrictions which do not enable are not noble, but the willingness to adopt enabling restrictions can be markers of nobility.

The Talliban enforce non-enabling restraints, whereas true nobility is to know the difference between an enabling restraint and one that does not and to act accordingly.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

More to the point, how many people lose belief and then adopt a more altruistic posture, versus a more self-absorbed narcissitic posture?

I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I'm just throwing out a question.

By their fruits, you will know them.

That is well put.

Most of the people with whom I'm personally familiar who ultimately leave the Church follow the narcissstic path. Intellectually, I leave open the first option, but personally have yet to observe it.

[Archaea]

Perhaps it devolves into a further question without answers.

Do most people try to get by in life, or are most people trying to be "good." In light of the fact that the majority of the world's population is poor, I imagine most are just trying to get by day to day.

Of those people who have the time to ponder questions of morality, how far are they willing to push it?

The conundrum seems to revolve around this question. From a disbeliever's position, they wish the world to see, especially the world of believers, that their choice of disbelief came about as on a path of sincere questioning, not out of a desire to be less altruistic, and that "evidence" which cast in doubt claims of the believers led them to disbelief.

The believer on the other hand cannot believe a disbeliever can disregard the evidence and believes the disbeliever is simply seeking license to do as he pleases.

That is the paradigm that each side struggles with.

It is interesting that most disbelievers tend to lead less altruistic lives once they depart from the path of belief. Whether the believers are better for it, is yet to be determined, but rarely does a life of disbelief lead to more sacrifice, although the disbeliever believes he or she is happier, whatever that is.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Restrictions which do not enable are not noble, but the willingness to adopt enabling restrictions can be markers of nobility.

The Talliban enforce non-enabling restraints, whereas true nobility is to know the difference between an enabling restraint and one that does not and to act accordingly.

If you ask a Taliban, he'll tell you that burqas are enabling. If you ask an Amish, he'll tell you that foregoing electricity is enabling. And if you ask a mormon, he'll tell you that doing without tea and coffee is enabling. Every religion thinks their own particular set of restrictions are enabling.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

If you ask a Taliban, he'll tell you that burqas are enabling. If you ask an Amish, he'll tell you that foregoing electricity is enabling. And if you ask a mormon, he'll tell you that doing without tea and coffee is enabling. Every religion thinks their own particular set of restrictions are enabling.

True, claims will be made.

There is good medical evidence that foregoing the elements foregone by LDS to be beneficial to the collective health of society, even though an individual may be able to injest such matters without much harm.

There is not much scientific evidence supportive of the Amish or Talibanian claims.

Eventually, claims of enablement should be able to be demonstrated.

Neither the Amish nor Taliban can show any evidence of improvement in the lives of their adherants. The LDS can.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by Archaea

It is interesting that most disbelievers tend to lead less altruistic lives once they depart from the path of belief. Whether the believers are better for it, is yet to be determined, but rarely does a life of disbelief lead to more sacrifice, although the disbeliever believes he or she is happier, whatever that is.

So, not only are disbelievers narcissistic and self-absorbed, but now they are less altruistic? What's funny is that if you were to ask most non-mormons in Utah to generally describe mormons, you'd hear the word "self-absorbed" a lot more often than you'd hear the word "altruistic".

[All-American]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

So, not only are disbelievers narcissistic and self-absorbed, but now they are less altruistic? What's funny is that if you were to ask most non-mormons in Utah to generally describe mormons, you'd hear the word "self-absorbed" a lot more often than you'd hear the word "altruistic".

Everybody thinks everybody else is wrong. This is nothing new. Didn't you just tell us how the Taliban and the Amish think that their restrictions are enabling?

[MikeWaters]

He is not talking about non-Mormons. He is talking about ex-Mormons.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

He is not talking about non-Mormons. He is talking about ex-Mormons.

Whom I still believe fall under the umbrella of "everyone." Though I am open to the possibility that ex mormons are somehow less of a human being.