4 ms·

This is the Mormon immune response to exposure to information that causes cognitive dissonance: slander the people who left the church because the fact that the

by ttpphd 3y ago

This is the Mormon immune response to exposure to information that causes cognitive dissonance: slander the people who left the church because the fact that they left the church means they are ignorant.

freedomben 3y ago
lol, why would I slander myself? If avoiding cognitive dissonance is my goal, it would be far easier to just accept uncritically any dumb thing against the church than to have to defend the truth. This is the type of black and white response that I find so common with ex-mormons. If somebody pushes back on disinformation (even easily disproved like the above thing about keeping caffeine teachings secret), the superstitious thinking kicks in and excuses fly (like "they must be a secret apologist" which I heard recently). It's every bit as ridiculous as the believers are when they dismiss inconvenient facts like Zelph the White Lamanite[1][2] because it goes against their preferred narrative. It's superstitious thinking. Edit: Hah! I couldn't have asked for a better real-time example to demonstrate my point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35774479 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35774479 [1]: http://www.mormonthink.com/zelph.htm http://www.mormonthink.com/zelph.htm [2]: https://mormonr.org/qnas/3yUz5/zelph_the_lamanite https://mormonr.org/qnas/3yUz5/zelph_the_lamanite
- ttpphd 3y ago
  Point out the lie when you see a lie, but this sort of blanket statement is inappropriate and reflects your own biases.
- darksaints 3y ago
  Citing two prominent Mormon apologist foundations certainly doesn’t help your point that you’re not acting as closeted Mormon apologist. And when you use a misunderstanding of a non-Mormon about secrecy and caffeine as an example of ex-Mormon lies, you are certainly showing your bias towards those who leave the church. The exmormon community is extremely thorough and factual when it comes to talking about the church, because it is to their benefit. More people have left the church after unsuccessfully trying to refute The CES Letter than have ever left due to smear campaigns and slander. The truth is to the rational thinker’s benefit, which is why the church spends so much time and money hiding it and whitewashing it.
  - nocoolnametom 3y ago
    > Citing two prominent Mormon apologist foundations Um, I think you're confusing MormonThink and MormonR for "FAIR" or the "BoM Foundation". They're two "middle-way" sources that try to balance the knife's edge of giving just enough of the negative-yet-factual information that faith is still possible, as opposed to something like the CES Letter which is a compendium of pretty much every negative-yet-factual piece of information that, in total, make faith in the organization pretty much impossible for the average member who reads it. But they're definitely not apologetic sites, they're just more of a "shallow water" approach than a "throw you in the deep end of the pool" approach.
    - freedomben 3y ago
      Exactly, thank you. Most members consider MormonThink to be anti-Mormon, and IMHO they do tilt that way but they try to be balanced. MormonThink is definitely not a bunch of Mormon apologists. Go look at the actual apologist sites like FAIR and see how many "refutations of MormonThink" they have. Hint: it's a lot. Mormonr is IMHO very fair, just on the other side fence. They're a faithful group, but they are committed to truth and scholarship and they're willing to say, "yeah that embarrassing thing does seem to be true" when it seems to be true.
  - freedomben 3y ago
    > Citing two prominent Mormon apologist foundations certainly doesn’t help your point that you’re not acting as closeted Mormon apologist. For someone so committed to "truth", "rational thinking," and being "extremely thorough and factual" you've sure gotten a lot wrong in just this message. Mormonthink is far from a prominent apologist foundation. Most Mormons consider them anti. You should probably look at the site before jumping to such a confirmation-bias driven conclusion.
tomcam 3y ago
Where did freedomben slander (I think you meant libel, since it was written) anyone?
lolinder 3y ago
>> I'm a former Mormon (I guess you could call me an "ex-mormon"). > This is the Mormon immune response OP literally said they don't identify as a Mormon any more, so your response feels like a knee-jerk reaction against something you've seen elsewhere, rather than an actual response to their comment. They're speaking from the outside looking at others on the outside, not trying to justify their own current beliefs.
- ttpphd 3y ago
  They are justifying their current beliefs about exmormons.

by ttpphd 3y ago

freedomben 3y ago

lol, why would I slander myself? If avoiding cognitive dissonance is my goal, it would be far easier to just accept uncritically any dumb thing against the church than to have to defend the truth. This is the type of black and white response that I find so common with ex-mormons. If somebody pushes back on disinformation (even easily disproved like the above thing about keeping caffeine teachings secret), the superstitious thinking kicks in and excuses fly (like "they must be a secret apologist" which I heard recently). It's every bit as ridiculous as the believers are when they dismiss inconvenient facts like Zelph the White Lamanite[1][2] because it goes against their preferred narrative. It's superstitious thinking. Edit: Hah! I couldn't have asked for a better real-time example to demonstrate my point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35774479 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35774479 [1]: http://www.mormonthink.com/zelph.htm http://www.mormonthink.com/zelph.htm [2]: https://mormonr.org/qnas/3yUz5/zelph_the_lamanite https://mormonr.org/qnas/3yUz5/zelph_the_lamanite

ttpphd 3y ago
Point out the lie when you see a lie, but this sort of blanket statement is inappropriate and reflects your own biases.
darksaints 3y ago
Citing two prominent Mormon apologist foundations certainly doesn’t help your point that you’re not acting as closeted Mormon apologist. And when you use a misunderstanding of a non-Mormon about secrecy and caffeine as an example of ex-Mormon lies, you are certainly showing your bias towards those who leave the church. The exmormon community is extremely thorough and factual when it comes to talking about the church, because it is to their benefit. More people have left the church after unsuccessfully trying to refute The CES Letter than have ever left due to smear campaigns and slander. The truth is to the rational thinker’s benefit, which is why the church spends so much time and money hiding it and whitewashing it.
- nocoolnametom 3y ago
  > Citing two prominent Mormon apologist foundations Um, I think you're confusing MormonThink and MormonR for "FAIR" or the "BoM Foundation". They're two "middle-way" sources that try to balance the knife's edge of giving just enough of the negative-yet-factual information that faith is still possible, as opposed to something like the CES Letter which is a compendium of pretty much every negative-yet-factual piece of information that, in total, make faith in the organization pretty much impossible for the average member who reads it. But they're definitely not apologetic sites, they're just more of a "shallow water" approach than a "throw you in the deep end of the pool" approach.
  - freedomben 3y ago
    Exactly, thank you. Most members consider MormonThink to be anti-Mormon, and IMHO they do tilt that way but they try to be balanced. MormonThink is definitely not a bunch of Mormon apologists. Go look at the actual apologist sites like FAIR and see how many "refutations of MormonThink" they have. Hint: it's a lot. Mormonr is IMHO very fair, just on the other side fence. They're a faithful group, but they are committed to truth and scholarship and they're willing to say, "yeah that embarrassing thing does seem to be true" when it seems to be true.
- freedomben 3y ago
  > Citing two prominent Mormon apologist foundations certainly doesn’t help your point that you’re not acting as closeted Mormon apologist. For someone so committed to "truth", "rational thinking," and being "extremely thorough and factual" you've sure gotten a lot wrong in just this message. Mormonthink is far from a prominent apologist foundation. Most Mormons consider them anti. You should probably look at the site before jumping to such a confirmation-bias driven conclusion.

tomcam 3y ago

Where did freedomben slander (I think you meant libel, since it was written) anyone?

lolinder 3y ago

>> I'm a former Mormon (I guess you could call me an "ex-mormon"). > This is the Mormon immune response OP literally said they don't identify as a Mormon any more, so your response feels like a knee-jerk reaction against something you've seen elsewhere, rather than an actual response to their comment. They're speaking from the outside looking at others on the outside, not trying to justify their own current beliefs.

ttpphd 3y ago
They are justifying their current beliefs about exmormons.