JFC Cult DeProgramming Help Thread

[Siro]

Yes, I believe that they are less arbitrary. They are a much less rigid system and no real rules. I think trying to make things around you better is an actual reason to do something. Not drinking coffee because its in a book and will get you into heaven is much more of a whim and without real meaning to me.

Not drinking coffee, and other such rituals, are mutual fictions that people, throughout the ages, have found necessary to maintain community bonds. Religious sentiments are obviously a powerful motivator for people, and it is probably far more effective at motivating people than the voluntary do-goodness of the liberalist worldview. For example, religious people give more to charity(even disregarding contributions to religious institutions), despite the fact that the "less-fortunate" is far and away the liberals' favorite topic. Then there is the whole thing with individualism destroying every semblance of what humans have traditionally considered a meaningful community in the West (recommended reading, Tribe: on Homecoming and Belonging). The mutual fictions that the secularists hold (like the myth of the Dark Ages) just don't pack the same punch.

I don't want my post to be interpreted as me saying "religion is good, humanism is bad". I'm not. What is good, bad, better, or worse, depend on our values and how we assign significance. I.e. It's all arbitrary. There is no inherent reason for, say, being yourself and chasing your own destiny, to be a superior value than respecting your elders and towing the community line. It just depends on what aspects of human existence you find more important. And that determination is incidental. It's an emotional response based on your socialization and brain structure. There's nothing more to it.

 

[babe]

Yes, I believe that they are less arbitrary. They are a much less rigid system and no real rules. I think trying to make things around you better is an actual reason to do something. Not drinking coffee because its in a book and will get you into heaven is much more of a whim and without real meaning to me.

just trying to figure out exactly what's sticking.... gagging... in your thinking about religion. This seems to be a reference to the Word of Wisdom in LDS doctrine/cultural construct. Pretty sure every little cult or major religion has some items that are "convenient classifiers" that can immediately be applied on the scantest evidence by the weakest of minds among the set.

If you like to drink, smoke, use tea or coffee, or perhaps even do so immoderately, or with deplorable excess, the analysis would not measure up to the more educated Mormons, imo. Within four or five decades, we had some general authorities who would tell bishops that if they couldn't smell the tobacco in their congregation, they weren't doing their job. The intended point in that was that folks needed to be more welcoming to their non-member neighbors and straying family members, a sort of "this is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for Saints" idea.

And within a hundred years, we had general authorities who used graphic (expletive-laced) language and used tea, coffee, alcohol and tobacco. It was understood to be mere "advice" until the Prohibition Era (circa 1920-30), and was not especially correlated with the fundamental virtues or measurements of the faith.

My father, as a young man going to college, wrote a brilliant scientific defense of the Word of Wisdom circa 1932, but by 1943 while teaching flying school for the air force began using coffee every morning. By 1950, when accepting an award as the "Best Teacher" in an assembly, a Mormon-run school, held the challis up high and turned it upside down, observing "What??? No Beer????", creating a raucous roar in the Mormon studentbody. He was a fun teacher.....

I attribute the downward intellect appearing presently to a "common-core" type of educational theory, which has long prevailed in the LDS Sunday School. yah know.... compliance-centered rote.

 

[Ron Mexico]

Not drinking coffee, and other such rituals, are mutual fictions that people, throughout the ages, have found necessary to maintain community bonds. Religious sentiments are obviously a powerful motivator for people, and it is probably far more effective at motivating people than the voluntary do-goodness of the liberalist worldview. For example, religious people give more to charity, despite the fact that the "less-fortunate" is far and away the liberals' favorite topic (even disregarding contributions to religious institutions). Then there is the whole thing with individualism destroying every semblance of what humans have traditionally considered a meaningful community in the West (recommended reading, Tribe: on Homecoming and Belonging). The mutual fictions that the secularists hold (like the myth of the Dark Ages) just don't pack the same punch.

I don't want my post to be interpreted as me saying "religion is good, humanism is bad". I'm not. What is good, bad, better, or worse, depend on our values and how we assign significance. I.e. It's all arbitrary. There is no inherent reason for, say, being yourself and chasing your own destiny, to be a superior value than respecting your elders and towing the community line. It just depends on what aspects of human existence you find more important. And that determination is incidental. It's an emotional response based on your socialization and brain structure. There's nothing more to it.

I here this type of take often. I do think that some of the rituals served a purpose and helped with those bonds before but that has gone away more and more. I have found now days that non religious people follow societies morals better than religious people and studies are backing that up. In the US atheist generally adhere to christian morals better than christians.

I also disagree that religious people dontate more to charity. The study many people quote on that showed that religious people dontated slightly more but when they factored in giving to your own church in those went away. 75% of what people donate goes to their own church and generally does not benefit the less fortunate.

I think there is a universal idea that is shared with everyone, not just your own religion, that you want the world around you to be better. When that idea is shared the world becomes a better place. I think its less arbitrary than something specific. But even if you go by specifics I think the major beliefs would show that the world is trending towards a better place. Whether or not those ideas are based on your environment is debatable but almost every society throughout history generally finds its way to the same things makes me believe its human nature. I think almost everyone wants to be allowed to live their life how they want and want their freedom and the golden rule is almost always the best way to reach that.

But I understand the idea of indifference to what is good/bad and that is meaningless but even then allowing each to come to those conclusions as long as you are not forcing it on others is meaningful in itself and far more productive than forcing beliefs on others regardless of what those are.

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

When it comes to social issues, who decides whether it's still broken?

Apparently you do since you are taking an accusative stance with "still broken". Of course, we all know society determines on social issues by definition. And most of us realize that society has a tendency to go off the rails quite often.

 

[Siro]

I think there is a universal idea that is shared with everyone, not just your own religion, that you want the world around you to be better. When that idea is shared the world becomes a better place. I think its less arbitrary than something specific. .

My whole response is about this part. What is a better place for one person is worse for another...

 

[Ron Mexico]

just trying to figure out exactly what's sticking.... gagging... in your thinking about religion. This seems to be a reference to the Word of Wisdom in LDS doctrine/cultural construct. Pretty sure every little cult or major religion has some items that are "convenient classifiers" that can immediately be applied on the scantest evidence by the weakest of minds among the set.

If you like to drink, smoke, use tea or coffee, or perhaps even do so immoderately, or with deplorable excess, the analysis would not measure up to the more educated Mormons, imo. Within four or five decades, we had some general authorities who would tell bishops that if the couldn't smell the tobacco in their congregation, they weren't doing their job. The intended point in that was that folks needed to be more welcoming to their non-member neighbors and straying family members, a sort of "this is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for Saints" idea.

And within a hundred years, we had general authorities who used graphic (expletive-laced) language and used tea, coffee, alcohol and tobacco. It was understood to be mere "advice" until the Prohibition Era (circa 1920-30), and was not especially correlated with the fundamental virtues or measurements of the faith.

My father, as a young man going to college, wrote a brilliant scientific defense of the Word of Wisdom circa 1932, but by 1943 while teaching flying school for the air force began using coffee every morning. By 1950, when accepting an award as the "Best Teacher" award in an assembly, in a Mormon-run school, held the challis up high and turned it upside down, observing "What??? No Beer????", creating a raucous roar in the Mormon studentbody.

I attribute the downward intellect appearing presently to "common-core" type of educational theory, which has long prevailed in the LDS Sunday School. yah know.... compliance-centered rote.

Sorry I am not sure I follow what you are saying here but ill try to address what I think you are saying.

My sticking point with religion is the idea that people think they are right and others are wrong. Then they take it one step further and try changing laws and trying to force people to follow their silly rules. Additionally trying to convert people to your ideas by manipulation tactics to help you feel justified.

I dont really care at all about the word of wisdom. It is very silly and not a great thing from a health standpoint but regardless if someone wants to follow it, thats great. But dont try to change the laws to get other people to follow your peculiar ideas.

Utah and SLC used to be a very heavy drinking place around 1900. But when it became a requirement to enter the temple to not drink things changed quickly. But I believe religions in general bend to the world around them as time goes on and the Mormon church is no exception. They keep changing their beliefs to fit in more and be socially acceptable. I think it is a matter of time before they allow gay people to be full members just like they did with black people. The word of wisdom was not followed as closely and mandated like it is today. Utah has one of the wackiest liquor law history of anywhere in the world. From being a heavy drinking place and the deciding vote to end prohibition to where we have been more recently. Money has generally been the biggest factor for many of the weird laws though. Like when prohibition ended and Utah didnt want to lose all the money they were making from beer so they started selling "non alcoholic beer" that was 4% so it could be sold during prohibition.

But I am not really talking about Mormon people in general but all religious people. Mormons are just easy to point out.

 

[Ron Mexico]

My whole response is about this part. What is a better place for one person is worse for another...

That is my point. Those might be different for people but allowing each to do their own thing reaches that for both. That is not arbitrary to me.

I also think that is rarely true that good and bad are conflicting.


But I would also argue that there are specific things that almost every society would agree on that would point to being a better place. And by most religious and non religious standards the world in general has reached those universal morals better today than ever before. But I have heard some debates about that but I have not heard many compelling ones.

Generally this discussion is with a major religious person though and by most major religions things are better now than before. In the US we follow christian standards better than ever.

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

But I understand the idea of indifference to what is good/bad and that is meaningless but even then allowing each to come to those conclusions as long as you are not forcing it on others is meaningful in itself and far more productive than forcing beliefs on others regardless of what those are.

Ethics and morals are and will always be forced/enforced upon others. That's what we call society. You are making more of a live and let live and accept-love one another argument. That has obvious limitations.

 

[Stoked]

I wake up every morning and inject PC into my blood stream. Every morning.

Also you’d be wise to avoid gender specific pronouns amigo.

 

[Ron Mexico]

Ethics and morals are and will always be forced/enforced upon others. That's what we call society. You are making more of a live and let live and accept-love one another argument. That has obvious limitations.

I agree it has limitations. But those limitations and ideas should only be enforced when it inflicts on someone elses ability to live their life. That is why murder should not be allowed. I think we are getting better at that concept in the world.

Gay marriage for example. Many religious people think it is a sin, but its not effecting them and their ability to live life how they want. So obviously it should be allowed.

Or drinking laws. Driving drunk endangers people and should not be allowed. But what percentage my beer is that I drink has no effect on others and should not be a law.

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

I agree it has limitations. But those limitations and ideas should only be enforced when it inflicts on someone elses ability to live their life. That is why murder should not be allowed. I think we are getting better at that concept in the world.

Gay marriage for example. Many religious people think it is a sin, but its not effecting them and their ability to live life how they want. So obviously it should be allowed.

Or drinking laws. Driving drunk endangers people and should not be allowed. But what percentage my beer is that I drink has no effect on others and should not be a law.

Sure. I've mainly been nitpicking where I think things have been poorly worded and know you, OB, Siro and myself would be in general agreement.

My original philosophical issue was about when replacing religion with a cultish mentality of progress and change. A mentality that often throws out all reason, the human condition, raising children to be productive adult creators of the next generation, etc.

From my perspective, when people always think something always has to be improved - and this includes religious conservatives and non-religious alike - they tend to go overboard.

I had a conservation biologist professor who gave a 3 class lecture on the importance of getting along with all parties if you really want change. She was a radical in every other way IMO, but that was one of the simplest truths I've learned. I've found that most people don't want solutions to simple issues, they want problems. Gay marriage? Simple solution was to say **** a marriage license. Any party of legal age should be able to get a legally binding permit that protects both of them legally from the other in case of separation. That's all a marriage license is. So why couldn't we simply change the damn name from marriage and tell all religious people they could have a bloody marriage by there chosen church and all is good? Because we don't care about simple solutions and the harder the outraged progressives fight the harder the fundamentalist fight back.

 

[Zombie]

Gay marriage? Simple solution was to say **** a marriage license. Any party of legal age should be able to get a legally binding permit that protects both of them legally from the other in case of separation. That's all a marriage license is. So why couldn't we simply change the damn name from marriage and tell all religious people they could have a bloody marriage by there chosen church and all is good? Because we don't care about simple solutions and the harder the outraged progressives fight the harder the fundamentalist fight back.

I’m not sure I agree that this solution is any simpler than what gay marriage advocates were fighting for. Seems to me that allowing any two consenting adults to marry is pretty ****ing simple.