K-Dog's suffering

[SeattleUte]

Pity K-Dog. Like many of us the stork brought him to the wrong place. Intelligent and educated people brought up as devout Mormons or during formative years inculcated with Mormonism's beliefs and values react to the awful clash between modernism (founded on empiricism and reason) and Mormon doctrine and tradition one of three ways (sometimes migrating between these general categories of reactions):

1) They realize the conflict is insoluble, and making the personal choice that the the modern paradigm is preferable for directing their lives, apostatize.

2) They recognize that the two spheres are irreconcilable, so they compartmentalize. This may involve simply consigning the nonsense to the realm of "mystery" or there may be a private recognition that Mormonism is not "true" in terms of, for example, what JS said happened really or literally have happened. In any event, the hallmark of this second group is that they see that Mormonism is the faith in which fate placed them, they conclude that religion, while inherently flawed in significant respects, still serves many useful purposes, including a vehicle for service, and they conduct a subconscious or conscious (usually the latter) cost benefit analysis deciding that they or their families are better off with the moorings, etc., that Mormonism provides rather than braving the open seas. This second group usually has little problem accepting emerging modern values that may conflict with Mormon tradition, at least in the abstract, because they don't mix the two spheres. They may also be reacting to self interest in the sense that their professionale well-being or familial relations depend on their remaining at least superficially in the fold.

3) They try to employ the reasoning and rhetorical skills they learned in college to try to reconcile what is irreconcilable. Hence FARMS, and, for example, K-Dog comparing homosexuality to a physical disability that someone must simply overcome, trying to live as normal a life as possible (the internal contradictions and ironies in this argument are head spinning). Or you have YSMACK arguing that homosexuality must be a choice, based upon a whole lot of out of the mainstream analysis by a mere lawyer that endeavors to explain away the mainstream empricism and reason.

Often this last group experiences a great deal of psychic pain because of the inherent implausibility and even dishonesty of their position. Hence the intolerance and even hate speech when their "analyses" are tested.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Pity K-Dog. Like many of us the stork brought him to the wrong place. Intelligent and educated people brought up as devout Mormons or during formative years inculcated with Mormonism's beliefs and values react to the awful clash between modernism (founded on empiricism and reason) and Mormon doctrine and tradition one of three ways (sometimes migrating between these general categories of reactions):

1) They realize the conflict is insoluble, and making the personal choice that the the modern paradigm is preferable for directing their lives, apostatize.

2) They recognize that the two spheres are irreconcilable, so they compartmentalize. This may involve simply consigning the nonsense to the realm of "mystery" or there may be a private recognition that Mormonism is not "true" in terms of, for example, what JS said happened really or literally have happened. In any event, the hallmark of this second group is that they see that Mormonism is the faith in which fate placed them, they conclude that religion, while inherently flawed in significant respects, still serves many useful purposes, including a vehicle for service, and they conduct a subconscious or conscious (usually the latter) cost benefit analysis deciding that they or their families are better off with the moorings, etc., that Mormonism provides rather than braving the open seas. This second group usually has little problem accepting emerging modern values that may conflict with Mormon tradition, at least in the abstract, because they don't mix the two spheres. They may also be reacting to self interest in the sense that their professionale well-being or familial relations depend on their remaining at least superficially in the fold.

3) They try to employ the reasoning and rhetorical skills they learned in college to try to reconcile what is irreconcilable. Hence FARMS, and, for example, K-Dog comparing homosexuality to a physical disability that someone must simply overcome, trying to live as normal a life as possible (the internal contradictions and ironies in this argument are head spinning). Or you have YSMACK arguing that homosexuality must be a choice, based upon a whole lot of out of the mainstream analysis by a mere lawyer that endeavors to explain away the mainstream empricism and reason.

Often this last group experiences a great deal of psychic pain because of the inherent implausibility and even dishonesty of their position. Hence the intolerance and even hate speech when their "analyses" are tested.

Lame.

#1's are extremely rare.
#2 is your own invention. I really doubt there are many that fit the description.
#3 encompasses 98% of educated LDS, and many of those have reasonable, socially acceptable views on homesexuality and other political issues.

[Archaea]

This is really a trolling effort to stimulate an old debate.

Without regurgitating old discussions, let's turn the table to SIEQ's version of balancing one's faith with reason as pedals on the bicycle.

Whenever a person who has some faith of things unseen and not empirically established, that person will experience cognitive dissonance when experience appears to contradict empirical evidence.

How one reacts to the dissonance is very personal. One can reject wholesale or partially those items which seem in conflict, one can suspend judgment on the conflict, or one can endeavor reconcile the conflict. I imagine LDS, active, use all three mechanisms when dealing with conflict.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Lame.

#1's are extremely rare.
#2 is your own invention. I really doubt there are many that fit the description.
#3 encompasses 98% of educated LDS, and many of those have reasonable, socially acceptable views on homesexuality and other political issues.

#2 fits me very well.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Solon

#2 fits me very well.

I thought you said were still a believer. It's a church of 10M. I'm sure there are a few #2's. And this would be the site they might congregate, but they've got to be pretty rare.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Lame.

#1's are extremely rare.
#2 is your own invention. I really doubt there are many that fit the description.
#3 encompasses 98% of educated LDS, and many of those have reasonable, socially acceptable views on homesexuality and other political issues.

How can anyone disagree with this unless they challenge my predicate that there is a clash between modern values and Mormon doctrines and tradition?

1) Not so. There is a huge percentage of inactives--a silent majority. These folks have have de facto apostatized whether they have identified themselves as such or not. We'll never get the true numbers but by the LDS church's own admission it's over 50%. Moreover, as discussed below, I'm not attempting to describe the entire LDS populatoin. Just a subset that is probably a minority.

2) Not sure that you are competent to make this judgment, as it's not clear to me that you meet both of the two foundational prerequisites I identified for inclusion in the group I'm describing.

3) See no. 2) above. I'm not attempting to describe all Mormons. Just a subset.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by jay santos

I thought you said were still a believer. It's a church of 10M. I'm sure there are a few #2's. And this would be the site they might congregate, but they've got to be pretty rare.

Again, I doubt you are competent to make this judgment for the reason previously stated.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

This is really a trolling effort to stimulate an old debate.

Without regurgitating old discussions, let's turn the table to SIEQ's version of balancing one's faith with reason as pedals on the bicycle.

Whenever a person who has some faith of things unseen and not empirically established, that person will experience cognitive dissonance when experience appears to contradict empirical evidence.

How one reacts to the dissonance is very personal. One can reject wholesale or partially those items which seem in conflict, one can suspend judgment on the conflict, or one can endeavor reconcile the conflict. I imagine LDS, active, use all three mechanisms when dealing with conflict.

Admittedly I used a blunt instrument in making my categorizations. But what you are describing falls in my category no. 2.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Admittedly I used a blunt instrument in making my categorizations. But what you are describing falls in my category no. 2.

I find the fact that you crystalize people into a grouping specious to begin with. People float on issue to issue to determine their faith and their sense of belonging. Eventually, somebody may decide if the entire collection of faith objects are too incongruent, but I submit people utilize coping skills, even for the believers. Even if I believe a nonempirical event to be true because it defies rational observation, my doubt is not the same thing as discovering it not to be true, it is element of my didactic, which more modular the systemic.

Your groupings assume a systemic approach to faith, when in addition to compartmentalizing, I would argue persons "control" aspects of faith to use it when necessary and to rely upon reason when necessary. The bicycle analogy is a perfect analogy. You fail to recognize the distinction.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Admittedly I used a blunt instrument in making my categorizations. But what you are describing falls in my category no. 2.

If that is so, then you need to divide the #2 category: believers and non-believers. You've mentioned before and did again in your #2 definition this concept of masses of educated LDS members that apostatized in their hearts but continue to go through the motions of church membership to gain the social benefits. That's the group I say is nearly non-existent.