It seems that's not always the case...

It does for some people. It doesn't for others.
No matter how much we'd like everyone to be the same, they're not. :)

Depends what you mean by open...just the fact you left had to make a hellish gap didnt it?...thinking for yourself is likely a learned behavior...it might take time...as we test limits that were instilled without the big lightening torching your toupee...you begin to question more of the lies that mama told you...probly why many begin to question everything you thought was true...its a journey...its a marathon...not a sprint

As with many belief systems...your thinking is done for you...never question...never criticize leaders...mouth shut brain in neutral...even logical reasoning is discouraged...for if you do youll leave...you cant help it...like any little child it takes time and maturity to even learn what you accept and believe...we are after all just a bundle of learned behaviors and responses...starting with kindergarden

Right on cheryl...i took a little different tack...i didnt need the full out storm the bastille rebellion that some do...slobbering falling down drunk just looked stupid and not fun...promiscuity just made little sense just for its tempting nuance...observation just made me say meh...because others are kicking horse tirds down the road doesn't mean i have to...doing the right thing just because its the right thing isnt easy but its always right...now you just have to determine your own sense of right...some values we were taught just arent that useful...ill decide where my donation to helping my fellow man goes...keep your temple reccomend

I liked what you said about mormons saying "The thinking has been done."

I think that's at the crux of this discussion. If someone says there is only one right answer to a question and tries to force it on everyone, they have not learned the difference between "mormon think" and original mature thought.

Leaving mormonism opens up a new world where people pick and choose their own conclusions based on their own original reasoning. They're not locked in to believing that there is only one right answer and they can appreciate real diversity not canned answers.

Meaning they don't exactly think for themselves, but rather take the opposite stance to everything they learned from mormons. Some of the non-religious lifestyle or attitudes might work for some exmos.

As for me, I tested out the teen mindset against mormonism and gave up parts and pieces of it through experimentation, observation, and logic.

I don't accept knee-jerk reactions to leaving the mormon church.

Just because someone disagrees with you on anything in religion, politics, or any topic means that they are not open-minded. We've all walked in different shoes throughout our lives. There are valid reasons why people believe differently on philosophy, afterlife, political parties, politicians, global politics, local politics, and everything. People have different priorities on what kinds of facts and issues matter to them most.

That's very true. Has little obvious affect on some people, though, and there's no accounting for that.

It's an interesting thing, isn't it?

I have to wonder if at least some of the people who find themselves more open, always were open, but the church stifled that. Being open minded in the church was often punished and you could easily find yourself ostracized for it.

Take me for example. While I was a TBM, I followed along with the LDS stance against marriage equality. It never sat well with me, and I did my best to understand the church's policies with the apologetic material that was out there. Being homosexual was "bad" and while I couldn't figure out why, the supreme moral authority said it was and I had no choice but to go along with it. The same was true for a lot of things. I followed along because to not do so meant I had to question the church, something that a TBM doesn't do.

Once I left the church, I no longer had those restrictions on me. I could look at things objectively, for myself. It was refreshing and a huge weight off my shoulders. I could finally allow my views to surface and, even better, I could question things. I was no longer forced into the closed minded mold the church had for me.

I'm not saying that people are who they are and don't change. People change all the time. I changed my views on the church. But I do think that there are people who are more open to being open and others who have a strong tendency towards being closed minded. Leaving the church can be wonderful for those open-minded people are stifled in the church. For those who are closed minded, leaving the church won't change their set views on things as they are, in their minds, "set".

I look at my parents and I wonder what they would be like if they were to leave the church. I have a feeling that they have been set in their ways after years of listening to Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and the like. They see threats around every corner and while they have always been accepting, I worry that fear would still rule their lives and so would have a difficult time dealing with the "different", if that makes sense.

Just because someone doesn't agree with others or come to the same conclusion as others doesn't mean they have a "closed" mind.

I'm not sure that's what the message is.

It isn't because of Mormonism or any religion in general, those are constructs that take advantage of our mental short cuts. We are fighting against hundreds of thousands of years of evolution not using logic or reason.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds

Please define what "you" mean when you say "would open your mind"? Are you concerned that your mind has not opened like you expected after leaving or that the people you have met that left mormonism do not seem to be "open minded"?

If it is the latter, what specific evidence do you have that they are not open minded?

A lot of it depends on how rusty your hinges are.

Just because there is a doorway in front of you doesn't mean it will open simply because you're standing in front of it.

Just like buying a book and looking at the cover won't tell you whats on the pages inside.

Opening your mind is up to you no matter what your situation is. It doesn't always happen spontaneously or just because you thought it would/ should.

I will try to restate your original thread title to see if my interpretation is correct.

My take; If you have been enlightened to the fraud perpetrated by Mormonism, why haven't you likewise been enlightened in your political views? Obviously you haven't because your views don't align with my enlightened liberal views, much of which opposes the bigotry put forth by religion."

This kind of exchange fails to address the merits and demerits of a particular belief. I suggest it is better to bring forth your best evidence and reasoning as to why a particular political belief is correct or incorrect instead.

Mormonism uses brainwashing and indoctrination to make people believe many things that simply are not true.

The problem is that many if not all of the current political turbulence is not based interpretation of fact but the denial of fact itself.

Example: Anthropogenic Climate Change. You can debate about what to do about it but you can't deny that it's happening.

Example: Trans Bathroom Panic. Someone is perfectly within their rights to say they just don't like trans people and don't want to be around them. You can debate what is the right solution but when there is no evidence that such attacks even occur you can't pretend that it is a problem when it isn't.

There are BOTH liberal evangelicals like Jimmy Carter and conservative evangelicals like Franklin Graham. People are free to disagree. But denial of reality and scientific fact is something else. That's what LD$, Inc. does.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/24/2017 05:11PM by anybody.

You don't have a right to insist they accept your say.

No matter how much you rant and rave and needle them, individuals will hold to their own right to see the world through their own eyes and make up their own minds.

You can't control other people and don't have a right to try.

No, they don't. I don't. No one does. Facts are facts, or as John Adams said, "Facts are stubborn things." You can interpret facts anyway you choose but you can't deny them.

In the year 1600, a man was burned at the stake for publishing the fact that the Earth revolved around the Sun.

If you think facts can just be made up, denied, ignored or discarded to suit individual taste, then you are not living in the real world but an imaginary alternative existence.

And reality has a rather nasty habit of catching up with you.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2017 10:11AM by anybody.

Everyone has a right to determine that without your interference.

I'll say this again. You are not in charge of anyone's brain except your own.

In that area, you are still mired in the mormon mindset that there is only one unchanging truth on social, political, and scientific issues, and the thinking has been done on all of those.

The thinking is never, never done. It will continue in spite of your efforts.

The genius of America is diversity of thought, not the opposite as you proclaim it. People have a right to be wrong and they also value to the evolution of the discussion. You do harm by demeaning them.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2017 04:35AM by Cheryl.

Thanks for the reply anybody. Like you,I try not to follow information that is supported by fact. Sometimes I am wrong and I will generally admit it.

I am interested in finding the truth more than winning a debate. Debate seems the best place to introduce evidence for others to see. Sometimes I will be shown information that proves I was mistaken and I will acknowledge such if I am convinced. Discovering the truth is what matters.

My problem is people who will not do the same i.e. admit they were wrong. Others just try to hit nerves and agitate and I think we know who I am referring to without naming names. Winnig the argument at all costs is what they are about.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The problem is that many if not all of the current
> political turbulence is not based interpretation
> of fact but the denial of fact itself.
>
> Example: Anthropogenic Climate Change. You can
> debate about what to do about it but you can't
> deny that it's happening.



Your two examples are good ones to show why there is conflict in these topics, and the failure of simplistic binary thinking to adequately address the depth of the issues.

Take climate change. There's quite a bit of evidence that humans are contributing to climate change, but there are significant questions left unanswered. The earth has gone through a number of glacial ages followed by warming, and virtually all scientists recognize our current interglacial warming period started long before the industrial age. But to listen to some alarmists, humans are the sole reason for climate change. Conversely, some doubters suggest humans have no impact whatsoever. The truth may lie somewhere in between, but there is no scientific consensus on the exact amount of human impact. If it's a relatively small amount, it's silly to cripple our economy and hamstring industry with environmental requirements that are useless.

Add this uncertainty to the politicization of the issue, and it creates doubt. Take your title, "I don't mean liberal vs. conservative. I mean reality vs. fiction." Where do you draw the line? No reasonable person (or any scientist) claims all climate change is anthropomorphic in origin, so exactly what percentage is acceptable to charge to humans? Should you be labeled a heretic and silenced if you claim 10%, but labeled a genius and invited to all the right parties if you up that to 50%? Where is the line between those we reject as idiots and those we hail as great minds? We seldom see this discussed because of the simplistic binary thinking. Express doubt about the level of human impact, and you're immediately slapped with "denier" labels and dismissed as unworthy of engaging. This is not how science works.

And why is there such a need to require unquestioning acceptance of this? Some of the things I see from its proponents remind me more of Mormonism than science. We've seen historical records altered to better serve the narrative, collusion to doctor data, and virtual excommunication for scientists who fail to embrace accepted doctrine. Can you name any other branch of science that has some politicians suggesting contrary positions be criminalized? It's little wonder one MIT scientist has branded some alarmists as embracing a religion rather than science.

If you'd like to hear from a climate scientist who is agnostic about anthropomorphic global warming, here's a good, simple overview. He isn't denying it, but he notes there are so many things that effect climate, a small alteration in just a handful of naturally-occurring conditions can create everything we currently see: http://www.drroyspencer.com/my-global-warming-skepticism-for-dummies/


http://www.newsweek.com/should-climate-change-deniers-be-prosecuted-378652

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/02/09/top-10-global-warming-lies-that-may-shock-you/4/#588da05d38ff

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/#217d9205485d

http://www.jpands.org/vol18no3/lindzen.pdf

>
> Example: Trans Bathroom Panic. Someone is
> perfectly within their rights to say they just
> don't like trans people and don't want to be
> around them. You can debate what is the right
> solution but when there is no evidence that such
> attacks even occur you can't pretend that it is a
> problem when it isn't.

There are elements to this discussion that you seem unaware of that have nothing to do with whether or not somebody wants to be around trans people.

Unfortunately, this was implemented as a Title IX reform in schools. Sex is no longer a biological determination, but was rendered a social construct. This definition opens the doors in many instances for a boy who feels (or claims to feel) that he is actually a girl is entitled to use all facilities and participate in sports originally set aside for girls. Ironically, Title IX was established largely to carve out equality for girls in school programs, but this is now in jeopardy. If sex is no longer an actual biological condition, but a personal expression, there's no longer any true protection for girl's activities.

Here's an example of a boy who did that and made state track and field finals in Alaska: http://www.ktva.com/high-school-runner-brings-spotlight-to-alaska-transgender-policy-432/

In a strange twist today, a girl transitioning to a boy just won a Texas state girl's high school wrestling championship. He was undefeated against every opponent. Whereas every girl he faced was under strict rules that prohibited them from taking any performance-enhancing drugs, Mack has been taking testosterone supplements for 2 years. It worked as planned, and he was stronger than any girl on the mat. And he was the only one allowed to use a performance-enhancing drug.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/highschools/meet-the-texas-wrestler-who-won-a-girls-state-title-his-name-is-mack/2017/02/25/982bd61c-fb6f-11e6-be05-1a3817ac21a5_story.html?utm_term=.a837820395cb

While his case is unusual in that Texas requires athletes to compete according to their birth sex, 30 states do not have that requirement. If a student self-identifies as the opposite sex, they can participate in those races. If there is no objective criteria or scientific standard to determine what a "girl" is, you have effectively rendered the term useless.

Removing any real significance to what it means to be a girl also strips girls and women of any real expectation of privacy.
A man in Seattle last year entered a women's locker room at a public pool and began to disrobe. He waited and did it a second time later timing his visit for when young girls were changing for swim practice. He bore no signs of being anything other than a normal man as he again started undressing in front of these young girls, having already caught them doing the same.

The police were not called, and he did nothing illegal. He simply said he identified as a woman.

Is it your position that the outraged families of these young girls who were caught undressing by a man who flashed them are simply bigots venting their hatred for transgender people?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/02/17/transgender-rule-washington-state-man-undresses-locker-room/80501904/

This is why this cannot be treated as a "you're either for it, or you're a bigot" issue. There need to be protections made for women and girls to enjoy basic privacy rights during this process.
And maybe take a moment to explain to those 52 girls who were defeated by "Mack" in their wrestling matches why he was allowed to take a performance-enhancing drug and win the state championship while any of them would have been disqualified for doing so. Maybe it's just because they hate transgender people, huh?

When you're done with that, take a look at all the Federal, State, and local programs designed to encourage women-owned businesses. Kiss these all goodbye. Anyone, for any reason can self-identify as a woman, so what's preventing a man from simply checking the "woman" box and getting a benefit intended to help a woman? When he does this, who is the bigot? The woman who complains that she can't get her new business funded, or the guy who claimed to be a woman to get those funds?

This is why this issue is causing an uproar among groups that typically have little in common. Some conservative women and feminist groups are both voicing objections for similar reasons. If anyone can claim to be a woman, you've removed rights, privacy and basic safety from actual women.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2017 03:40AM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

Leaving mormonism opens up vast multiple possibilities. Most of them are credible options that don't directly relate to our former cult.

When we leave the mormon church, we have a right to expect respect and consideration from other exmormons with no limitations based on our voting record or other nonreligious preferences. None of us owe anyone an apology for our opinions as long as we are not mired in mormonism or trying to hook others into it.

Anyone who rants, rails, and harasses or demeans other exmos for their political persuasion needs to be ashamed. Those decisions are as personal as sexual orientation or if we still like to eat bread and milk and home canned peaches on Sunday nights.

"needs to be ashamed"? I consider Mormons trained professionals in the shaming department. Having dealt with them for most of my life, when I see amateur attempts at shaming here, I'm torn between being irritated and amused.

I will, however, defend anyone's right to eat home canned peaches. I do wonder why home canned fruits are always in jars, not cans.

Thats a good point always in big jars.

That you have a right to tell others how to think and that you need to be proud of that right?

Not buying that one.

scaredhusband, thank you for that link. I found the New Yorker article fascinating!

Interesting what you said, Cheryl, about the "teen mindset". I have noticed what I perceive a 'teen mindset' in others' posts here from time to time.

It appears that minds "open" to different concepts and, most definitely, at different speeds. I think that everyone has a different definition of an "open mind", as you call it. some people may be perceived to be 'open minded' about certain topics though maintain a perceived 'closed mindedness' on another topic.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/24/2017 03:27PM by cinda.

It's been something interesting to watch. Ideologically I have seen many go to the polar opposite. In so many cases I have seen people study and logically dismantle Mormonism then without the same depth of understanding buy into something new hook, line, and sinker. Its fairly easy to see when a flaw is brought up conversation, and the recoil that occurs. Pretty sure when that happens deep thinking and considering is completely bypassed. To me its like trading one set of puppet string for another set.

try to be open-minded. But, not so open-minded that our brains drop out.

HH =)

Hey, anybody (OP), please give us more details about what brought on your post.

just as they did during the Dark Ages.

OP, in what regards? I have some ideas, but would love to hear your thoughts.

You don't want your mind too open, because you need it to be anchored to 'something.'

"A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything." - Malcolm X

There will always be anal people in life. The more open minded people get that way by reading, critical reasoning, and being receptive to objective and subjective forces that surround us.

Practice meditating, that might help. Or read inspiring, uplifting poetry. Watch a beautiful sunset. Things like that help to open my mind. Or hearing a beautiful song, or seeing a newborn baby cry. Get in touch with your humanity, and step outside your box to take in the world around you.

Practice tolerance of self and others. Things we do even if a little at a time are exercises in self-improvement/help. Change doesn't happen all at once. Take it increments if you must.

Small minded people may be stuck wherever they're at.

Whether in church or out of one. Small mindedness is its own reward, and that isn't very much!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2017 03:37PM by Amyjo.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2017 04:01PM by Amyjo.

"If you open your mind too much, your brain will fall out" - Tim Minchin

It's having an open mind that allows people to leave mormonism in the first place.

It probably will after some time and the mind jumpstarts and starts working on its own again not shut down and obeying whatever is said to it remember its been going like this on auto pilot forever now it wont be an instant whole new different world for you.

Mormonism beats racism, sexism and homophobia into your head, and the religion itself lacks any diversity. Even if you leave it's difficult to get rid of that kind of brainwashing.

I had it a bit easier than most of you as my family was hit and miss with being active when I was growing up. Mostly I kept a lot of the "cultural Mormon" stuff. I found some useful stuff to keep. I blew off all the dogma. Ultimately found my own spirituality.

The only open-minded people are the people who happen think the same way you do. All the rest of the people in the world are close-minded fools.

Yesterday (the day before yesterday for you guys in America) (s)he started a thread about crazy violent rednecks who wanted to clear their part of NC of muslims by "killing them all". Link: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1942818

No-one will disagree that those people are crazy and dangerous (I myself posted that I would like to see their weapons licenses revoked!) but not everyone agreed with a lot of other statements "anybody" made and it drove him/her mad. Gratuitous accusations of racism flew around. Especially Felix, anonuk and myself were attacked viciously by anybody and Loyalexmo not logged in.

At one point anybody posted "Visitors Welcome? As long as they aren't red, yellow, black or brown? Or belong to a non-christian faith?" which had nothing to do with anything I had posted (I'm an atheist living in Morocco dammit); and Loyalexmo told me to "Go over to Stormfront. Many more of your like-minded folks there. I mean that honestly. That would be a better fit for your needs."

Lots of ad hominem attacks and temper tantrums against anyone who did not agree 100% with the two of them. Which is funny, because Felix, anonuk and myself didn't always agree either. I found Felix a bit rightwing to my taste. But they did raise valid points which were never addressed by Loyalexmo and anybody.

So those two are not my friends. They cannot have a civilized discussion.

Scroll through the closed thread and decide for yourself if we committed the crimes we were accused of. Anyway, right after that thread was closed by the moderators, anybody started this one.

And I'm saying, no that's not quite true. It's not so simple and there are several other factors.

I'm sorry you thing I'm attacking you which I am not -- but there doesn't seem to be much difference between what your are saying and the anti-Islamic nutcases.

I'm not Muslim nor do I wish to be a Muslim. There's a lot I don't agree with. There are some things in Islamic history I do admire. I've known and worked with many Muslims. Some are devout, some not so much. They aren't all the same -- just like all the other major religions with hundreds of millions of followers. Islam in Iran is not the same Islam of Bosnia or Albania or Saudi Arabia. A lot of what you are critical of is history and culture with religion as a cover. Several ultra-Orthodox Jewish sects are just as strict as some interpretations of Islam.

There are some African-American evangelicals who are extremely misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic, and favour extreme corporal punishment for children. Because some are like that am I supposed to say ALL are them are like that?

You say "Islamophobia" doesn't exist. You can criticise a religion without being irrational. I'm talking about irrational fear. The kind of fear that makes someone burn down a mosque or shoot the first person they see in a turban (even though you are more likely to see a Sikh in a turban than a Muslim in America). Islamophobia is real and is on the rise.

The people at the meeting weren't just criticising Islam. They were looney tunes mad as hatters conspiracy theorists just like the John Birchers of the McCarthy era who thought there where communists and "subversives" under every rock who were going to infiltrate every aspect of American life and then when the secret signal goes out they'd take over. It's the same nonsense.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2017 04:23AM by anybody.

anybody Wrote:
> You are saying all Muslims are the same and Islam itself is the > enemy
> And I'm saying, no that's not quite true. It's not
> so simple and there are several other factors.
>
> I'm sorry you thing I'm attacking you which I am
> not -- but there doesn't seem to be much
> difference between what your are saying and the
> anti-Islamic nutcases.
>

There is a huge difference, because I am NOT saying all muslims are the same, dammit. On the contrary. There are atheist muslims, lapsed muslims, secular muslims, moderate muslims, devout muslims, all the way to the foaming-at-the-mouth hangers and floggers who are now running Islamic State.

However, the latter group are, according to the Koran itself, the only "real" muslims, and we need to protect the others from being radicalized by them.

That may not be such a big problem where you and I live, but in the UK, which is what anonuk referred to, and a lot of other European nations, it is a big problem: schoolchildren refusing to be taught evolution, refusing to swim with the opposite sex, refusing to shake hands with the opposite sex, pressuring muslim girls to wear a headscarf, calling non-muslim girls whores, etc.

I am not saying that all muslims are the same, but two other groups are: the racists and the fundamentalist muslims. Both groups agree on one thing: that there are 1.6 billion muslims in the world.

How do they reach that number? Simple, by taking the entire population of every muslim-majority country in the world and considering every one of its citizen a muslim, and by counting everyone outside the muslim world who had at least one parent from the muslim world, and considering them muslim too. They refuse to acknowledge the existence of atheists, agnostics, or "Jackmuslims" so to speak. They will consider them apostates, but still muslims who need to 'mend their evil ways'.

The racists in the article on North Carolina are the same: they count anyone of muslim origin as muslim. That's like saying every Belgian is a catholic, while 90% don't believe in God. People have the right to decide for themselves what they are. A lot of the teenagers who go to a mosque's 'sunday school' are sent by their parents and only stay as a courtesy to their family. Let them decide for themselves what they are.

Also, how did you dare to post "Visitors Welcome? As long as they aren't red, yellow, black or brown? Or belong to a non-christian faith?" That was totally uncalled for. Did you judge me a racist just because I am an atheist? Islam is not a race.

My grandfather was from Lebanon and my husband is the son of Turkish immigrants to Belgium. I have no family links to Morocco whatsoever. If we were racists, why would we have decided to move here?

So, either you quote where I said anything racist (not anti-religious) or you apologize.

And atheism has nothing to do with it. I don't believe in the supernatural or any religion. You didn't seem very "welcoming."


The last thing I'm going to say is this: Religion has caused the world a whole lot of trouble. People are going to do whatever they want to do and they adapt religion to justify their actions.

They also sometimes use it for good.

I am an atheist, but I've seen scans of human brains and some of them have a larger "religion center" than others. Those people have a encompassing need for it. There's no way to stamp that out by trying to dissuade them or ban what they need. It would be like trying to legislate sexual orientation or by forcing everyone into jobs that don't don't suit their skills. An individual's nature is inborn to a large extent.

The interesting thing is that both the evangelicals and fundie Islamists are the same. Only the religious labels are different.

On the surface, it seems like terrorism is about religion but when you dig deeper you find out that it isn't. The same is true for evangelicals who want their religion in politics and government. Religion is just a convenient tribal identity and much of what they preach is contrary to the message of Jesus.

Prevailing philosophies change over time. Individuals also evolve over time as they study and mature or undergo personal changes in their lives. In other words, no one can force anyone else to accept a certain frame of mind.

We can't control how some other person's brain works and can't force them to comply with any one attitude or point of view.

We're only in charge of our own thinking.

The comment about Stormfront was the only thing I said directly to you, and that was an honest comment--having read over at Stormfront, your rhetoric quite frankly did sound similar, just an observation, particularly the tendency to twist a thread about violence against one group into a discussion of violence against another--so your claims of 'vicious attacks' are highly unfounded. I've been personally attacked by people on here for my views in an actually vicious way, unlike what was said to you (you were never called any names, etc.), and no one's certainly ever come to MY rescue. I doubt you would either if their attacks were in defense of your ideology, considering that you seem very intent on personally attacking me now for disagreeing with you, so suffice it to say I have to believe this is more about the views expressed than any personal offense you have taken.

Also, a discussion about hate crimes against Muslims was hijacked into an anti-Muslim discussion and a discussion of the problems with Islam, which is totally irrelevant. Are there problems with Islam? Yes, of course. But imagine the reaction if a post about a single incident of Muslim violence or threats of violence against Christians was met with long posts about all the problems with Christianity and majority-Christian nations, thereby somewhat insinuating it's not that big of a problem. I wouldn't do that and would find it wildly offensive if anyone did.

Finding that morally repugnant, smacking of racism, and offensive and strongly disagreeing with it, which I do, is not an attack, nor do I care or would ever have commented on if you are 'personally' racist or how you treat your POC friends--also irrelevant. I am speaking of xenophobic racist ideologies and the tendency to dismiss violence against certain groups out of nativist fears.

If you disagree, that's perfectly fine. No attacks here, nor did I make any. I've looked over what I said in that thread and I was attacked far more than I attacked anyone else. I also don't go to other threads and complain about the times I've been called an idiot or any other name (which, again, I never did to you) for the ideologies I was espousing, nor do I call those people out by name or try to demonize them. To each their own.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2017 01:19PM by Loyalexmo.

suggesting someone would be more comfortable, or more at home somewhere other than where you are is passive aggression - it is indirect name calling by saying the person is different from those 'welcome' here (a mormon speciality so they have 'plausible deniability' if called out about it) and, quite frankly, bullying: an example of the worst type of manners. It is the message that appears to be behind the words implying to some readers "I think you're racist, I also think you don't belong here and I don't want you here, I want you to go somewhere away from here that has a bad name, and I thereby associate you with that bad name". It is behaving like a playground bully.

If this was not your intention, it was rather unfortunate that it came across in that way.

I believe Visitors Welcome called you out over it in this thread because she felt you had behaved like this towards her and others earlier in the other thread - she felt your posts in this thread a continuation of the aggression she felt in the other. Perhaps writing and talking in the manner you that you did write in is not taken as offensive in the part of the world where you are, but to many it is the height of bad manners and something we all put up with from our mormon family who, of course, deny ever saying anything like that at all, they only said .....(whatever).

Let's hope we can drop all these throw-backs to being mormon that some of us still display from time to time: we are only human after all.

You can take the child out of the ghetto, but you can't take the ghetto out of the child. A closed minded Mo makes a closed minded exmo. But maybe a little more open minded. It's hard to process your whole world being a lie.

What I remember about Mormonism is that it kinda worked. To me, that means it's okay to believe Mormonism. And if it's okay to believe Mormonism, it's okay to believe anything.

My experience is that most people who leave Mormonism already have pretty open minds (at least in North America and Europe--I don't know about anywhere else). I know that there are those who leave the Morg because of hurt feelings or because they are upset by someone in their ward/branch, or because they come to their senses in other ways (like realizing that the whole thing is a load of BS) and become even *more* narrow-minded by joining super-right-wing-conservative churches who believe that a woman's womb is the property of their imaginary sky-fiend and she has, therefore, no right to her own body. I even know one guy who left the Morg and became a muslim. There really are a whole spectrum of people who leave the Morg for whatever reason. Personally, I'd rather see the world wake up to itself and realize that all religion is nothing but mind control BS. As the late George Carlin said: It's all bullsh*t, and it's bad for ya.

It's a process. Nothing happens in the blink of an eye when making a major change in how we think about everything. Developing a new World View takes time and a lot of experimenting with different ideas and beliefs.
Give yourself permission to develop a different view point. Read, study, listen to others, take in new information, let it gel.
It all takes time.
You get to develop your own World View and you can change your mind about anything at any time.

It's OK. Take your time!

How do I edit a post. I seem to be dyslexic and sometimes say just the opposite of what I meant to say. I know others often edit their posts but I am rather imept on the computer.

you have to be logged in to edit a post and the post had to be written while you were logged in. Only other thing to do is to reply to the post you wish to correct with the correction.

Being a Mormon was mind opening in an inverse sort of way.

Compared to evangelical Christianity where only those who accept Jesus as Messiah are saved in eternity.

Or other religions that are exclusive.

Mormonism practices its own exclusivity, I know. But yet in that religion, EVERYONE, Mormon or not will be saved in the eternities.

I found that all encompassing and "loving," as a Mormon. That's part of the theology that Christians reject, but it worked for me as long as I was LDS.

How could a loving God reject those children who aren't born a certain religion?

Mormonism covered the bases.

Leaving the cult was an extension for me of what I'd given up, by expanding my horizons in that sense. That a loving God isn't so exclusive to limit heaven only to Mormons in the highest realm, and married LDS couples at that.

That was one positive aspect of the religion that I found to be loving if only in the sense that all people are saved (except for the sons of perdition such as Judas Iscariot, etc.)

And for us LDS who left, were therefore guilty as committing the ultimate in blasphemy (cough, sputter.) Well, I know now that is utter nonsense, but it was a way to keep us down on the farm by use of fear and intimidation.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2017 04:08PM by Amyjo.

Not necessarily.

That's something you've got to do on your own. It would just allow it. Make it possible. Grease the gears.

It's meant to be open. Naturally. However, Mormonism closes it (by design). Leaving Mormonism, it just doesn't have to stay closed any longer... so, sometimes, with a little [coaxing] oil (effort), it opens (back?) up.

What one does with it when it is open depends on the breathe, and depth, of the opener, or the opened, if you don't mind. Thinker



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2017 07:47AM by readwrite.

I don't think you can leave an authoritarian CULT like mormonism without first opening your mind to the truth! Each of us has to realize that we've been systematically lied to/taken advantage of from the very beginning of our mormon journey! There's also no doubt that we have been manipulated/shamed into giving our time/money to an ecclesiastical, pyramid scheme where the criminals at the top reap all the benefits/ control all the assets! How about malice with intent to defraud - fits like a glove in criminal, corporate mormonism!

As far as an open mind goes - after sometimes many years of abuse, we all react in a way that is comfortable for each/every one of us individually with hopefully, a valued, trusted companion at our side! This will help but it's not necessary to make an effective break from calculated abuse!

As for me, I didn't go bat-shit crazy after realizing that I had been abused for over 50 years by this vicious fraud! I didn't/don't womanize, take drugs, abuse alcohol/GOD forbid - drink coffee/tea! Why - because, I don't want to! An occasional glass of wine/apple ale is refreshing/ relaxing! That's right, I don't need any pious, obnoxious, hypocritical, GOD criminal operative/mindless, delusional, local mormon thug telling me anything! I control my own life/destiny no matter how obscure it may be! In our life, mormons have been relegated to a status of irrelevance/have no credibility/input whatsoever! In the end, we essentially told the mormon creeps of false religion (their profits/stooges) to buzz off in no uncertain terms! Now - it's our life to live! As Always, tnurg (GRUNT)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2017 09:41AM by tnurg.

Mormonism tends to promote black and white thinking along with "group think". So it can take a newly liberated exmo a while to appreciate shades of gray. It can also take a while to tolerate someone who disagrees with you in a civil manner.

Yes, interesting observation! When challenged with the facts, fanatical mormons can indeed aggressively overreact/be physically confrontational! We must always be mindful of unstable CULTISTS/how we can normalize a discussion/keep it civil! Look no further than organized, church basketball that was discontinued because of discontent/physical confrontations! As we have observed many times in a toxic, surreal, mormon environment, zealots oftentimes have a short fuse/limited boundaries! For this reason, I have seen the wisdom of agreeing to disagree on occasion when an ignorant, CULT adversary is getting overheated/out of control! The possibility that he/she may be wrong can enrage those incapable of mounting a competent rebuttal to a knowledgeable post mormon because the idea that the so-called, valiant mormon may have a distorted, inaccurate version of the historical record is simply unfathomable for many delusional victims! Sounds like you're on a healthy course out! Good luck! As Always, tnurg (GRUNT)