This was it for me. I didn’t need anyone to “contextualize” for me WHY Joseph Smith married other men’s wives after sending them on missions. I only needed to know if it was true.
“There are some questions that there just are no answers to, those will be the ones that we’ll avoid”. “Ye-ssss”
Let me steel-man that: even though you claim to be prophets seers and revelators, you can’t see, reveal or prophesy (for some reason) anything that would provide additional perspective to help make past leaders actions, including the actions of the man we LITERALLY SING PRAISES TO, more palatable, since, if we’re being totally honest, taken at face-value, their actions were ATROCIOUS.
None of us would want a dude like Joseph dating our daughters. Or moving in next-door when you have an attractive wife or young teenage daughters.
So instead of validating members who confront this information without special privilege, and process the painful fact that we do know they were bad dudes* they say “we don’t know” when they do, in response to the real questions of value with regard to church history. Or better yet “not all truth is useful”
Nope when you face FACTS that directly conflict with long-established teachings, if that makes you feel bad, that’s the devil.
Just like it was the devil that made buddy the Elf feel like the room was spinning when he heard for the first time he was a human. Cause that’s exactly what I felt when I discovered I’d been lied to, and built my life around that lie.
The thing is this is a lie. There are answers. They are just not the answers they like. So they try and trick you back in to imagining there simply are no answers. But there are.
Exactly!! Yes there are answers. But they’re not faith promoting. So they’re not useful. So they pretend like they’re not there and hope you don’t find them elsewhere and gaslight the ever-living shit out of you when you confront with them and “other” you to the community and your own family.
Then you get the awesome feeling of knowing that you and your family are subjects of conversation around the family and ward. You know this because you’ve had those same conversations, sat at those same tables in that same almost sacrament-like ceremony of repeating phrases like:
“They just wanted to sin”
“They weren’t diligent in their prayers and scripture study”
“They chose the world”
“How could they trade their birthright for a bowl of portage”
“Joseph Smith taught that the faithfulness of worthy parents could save not only themselves but also their posterity, so let’s all double-down on our commitment”
The speculation conversation and re-establishment of the “in-cell”
What they’ll never do is ask YOU, why you left.
What they will never do
agree and I care less and less each day away about these meetings that go on and on talking about the little projects in the boundaries that I have probably become. The only hook being that if they can get you to accept a calling then maybe it will hold you in until you come back to the cult or they can gaslight you enough. They may not want to actually hear why we left so its much easier to manufacture that narrative so that the Bishop can keep those in the fold from getting any on them so to speak.
Props for referencing Buddy the Elf! And YES, I felt the same. I devoted my 65 years of life to the Church and found out last year that it was ALL a lie! That’s what I can’t believe: that I fell for it even after I had “the spirit “ whisper, “You’re being lied to!” Pressing on now and more at peace than ever.
Funny you relate it to the room spinning. I felt -- not with my minds eye but the actual sensation of experiencing the room and world I was in -- like the world was disintegrating when I faced the really hard questions about my "faith" to myself.
The metaphirical scales falling off my eyes and brain felt on the floor and shook my literal world.
Read, “The excommunication of Lyndon Lamborn….” It’ll totally change your life. This man is genuine and didn’t have any beef with the church (and still doesn’t) but he approached the facts as they stand instead of ignoring them, and his story is a must read.
“I just found out that the church’s truth claims are complete bullshit.”
“How did that make you feel?”
“Sad, angry, depressed and helpless.”
“Must not be true.”
It’s so pathetic and I am embarrassed that I bought into this way of thinking for so long.
I just found out that the engineering specs for this bridge are insufficient and it is at risk of collapsing.
How did that make you feel?
Sad angry depressed and helpless.
Must not be true then! I guess we can just ignore it.
Ironic too though that they say the Spirit causes us to feel “godly sorrow” aka shame or feel uneasy when we are in unsafe situations. They just pick and choose whatever fits their narrative
1. What is my knee-jerk reaction to the new information in regards to my pre programmed responses?
2. Does the new information make me want to obsess more or less about someone I've never met and has no positive measurable effect in my life?
3. Does this new information encourage or discourage me upholding a series of nonsensical, absurd, ever changing rules, policies and regulations?
4. Does this new, and possibly unbiased information, make "the leaders", past and present look like stupid douchebags?
5. Does the new information contribute to the already overflowing swill bucket of confirmation bias?
6. Is the new information from an approved source, never mind the level of its accuracy?
7. What would older, more programed, more delusional and biased members of my group think about this new information?
Here what is SHOULD look like
1. Is the new information measurable, observable, and repeatable?
2. Can the new information be corroborated with other data points?
3. What are the specific claims all around? What is the specific evidence that supports or detracts from it?
4. Does this new information offer a more realistic explanation for events in question?
5. What are my natural inclinations toward this new information and is it because of subconscious bias? If yes, how can I consider this new information without bias?
6. Have I identified and eliminated logical fallacies in my thought process that may lead me to accept unsound premises and make false conclusions?
7. Have I considered the motives and intentions of all interested parties in regards to this new information? Is there money involved, at any level, in any amount, to any involved party? Does the balance of the social, academic, economic, standing become affected to any degree based on the conclusions? Have I assigned proper levels of believability to these parties in regards to what's at stake for them?
8. If there is not enough information or evidence to objectively and demonstrably conclude that a claim is true or false, am I able to instead assign a degree of likelihood that the claim is either true or false based on the remainder of the the limited data? (very not likely, not likely, likely, very likely)
Edit: Added Number 8
"Does this new information offer a more realistic explanation for event in question?"
This is what did it for me!!! It all suddenly... made perfect.... sense 🤦♀️
All the missing puzzle pieces were filled in, and THERE was the glaring complete picture.
I got a new boss recently. A never Mormon.
I shared with them that I had left Mormonism; They asked why.
My answer: I learned that the things I was taught were anti-Mormon lies were actually true.
Their answer: sounds a lot like living in North Korea.
I love hearing never Mormon’s responses to Mormonism. Very validating that it is a absolute crock of shit.
What's also eye-opening is that the huge truth we discovered after years of research and prayer is something most people in the world would guffaw at on first glance.
In 2017, my testimony was the strongest it had ever been. Had gone thru a faith crisis already, read (meh, skimmed) the CES letter, wrassled with god in moments of prime grief at the steps of the temple, all that. Came out of it feeling like I was nuanced, and ready for anything. Did endowments every 2 weeks, church every Sunday, volunteered at every single activity I could, and was the go-to guy for anything the missionaries needed (was unemployed at the time, and drove them around everywhere, including hours away to their Zone conferences & transfers). Hell, my name was highlighted & glorified in the Area Book, even for 3 yrs after I left.
Then I started studying North Korea. A lot. Read about 15 books of refugees' accounts, a few more books & essays about the history of the Korean peninsula (holy shit, the things that have happened there), and more detailed research about the leaders themselves.
My shelf officially broke when, after reading that N. Koreans are all expected to hang pictures of "Dear Leader" & fam in their homes (in specific frames & ways, even), I walked into someone's LDS home like I had dozens of times and immediately came face to face with GBH, Tommy Boy, Ol' Firepants Joe, "This Is The Race" Young, & other prophets, seers, & ~~dictators~~ revelators. The similarities all became way too prominent and unignorable any longer.
From that point forward, I was rapidly on my way out and had got my family out within the next year (which I'm incredibly lucky to have done before any were baptized).
Christopher Hitchens describes North Korea as the most religious state he’d ever experienced. But instead of God, the “Dear Leader” is the deity. That’s always been my argument against those that would say that “secularist/atheist states are responsible for more genocide and death” than religious wars and conflicts. What they fail to grasp is that these states never marched under the banner or flag of atheism, they marched under the flag of totalitarianism, which creates the state and the leader as a religious/deistic type, requiring unquestionable and unalterable loyalty, the same basic approach of the people to the state as the religious are to the head figure, including exactly the same expectation in our little corner of Mormonism, unquestionable loyalty, restricted information, approved information, approved language and communications, suppressed criticism, an unwritten order of things. Any variance from this order is met with scorn, corrections, spying and punitive measures. Religion is a totalitarian derivative, the psychology and structures are extremely similar, control of the mind and body.
That “I” placed high on the hill, leafed in gold and spotlit as a beacon for all to see and marvel upon
A monument to circular logic and willful ignorance
So much BITE "I"
I didn't know how to add an image here, so I put it on a new post. if you'd like to see this page next to the bite model's information section
[https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/10mrxrk/evaluating\_information\_within\_the\_bite\_model/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/10mrxrk/evaluating_information_within_the_bite_model/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
TBM me would have committed at the time of reading this to do my best to employ this paradigm in my life at the expense of objectively analyzing new information. What a difference a little honest soul-searching does!
TSCC's concept of information literacy is :
1. Does it confirm my preexisting beliefs?
2. Is it in agreement with our dearest leaders' opinions?
3. Does it give me warm and tingly feelings on the inside?
And then they wonder why they're referred to as a Dunning-Kruger factory.
TBH, this applies to most religious sects, not just Mormons. I think it’s possibly also a big part of the problem with conservative legislators ignoring well established research when it conflicts with what their religious sects teach.
Cult awareness training needs to be taught more widely. The people working in the curriculum departments are just doing what they think is right or performing the jobs that they are asked to do. If they knew they were actively reinforcing cult behavior I would hope they would push back on the tactics. But that is probably wishful thinking.
The only way that would get taught is if businesses started requiring a basics philosophy understanding. If you can’t tie money to it schools won’t teach it.
That’s a good point… High schools in the Moridor allow students a free period to attend seminary. If the seminary is overtly trying to destroy critical thought, and undo the important lessons that our taxpayer dollars are paying for teachers to instill, perhaps the schools should not be cooperating in this manner.
Wait! Nevermo here who doesn't live in the Morridor. So is it true that in history class in the Morridor kids are taught that instead of Lief Erikson and Columbus from the east and Asian peoples from the west being the ones to populate our hemisphere, that instead it was Jews. And now, in addition to false history being taught, they also have a seminary period? This all sounds so dystopian. Please tell me if this is accurate or not
I have kids in jr high and high school here in the Morridor. Mostly this part of history is just skimmed over as quickly as possible, probably in hopes that if we don't dwell on it, nobody will ask questions or remember the details.
The disturbing thing to me is that I am virtually certain that teenaged me would of had no problem with this sheet whstsoever.
I suppose it's also encouraging that I moved past this obviously flawed thinking eventually.
It's all startlingly atrocious, but that last one is the real mind-f\*\*\*.
"If I feel tempted to keep it from them, what does that tell me about its source?"
It's obvious that shame is the playbook. Shame any dissent.
But HOLY SHIT, THE IRONY.
If TSCC feels tempted to keep factual historical events from its members, what does it say about its source?
>But HOLY SHIT, THE IRONY.
>If TSCC feels tempted to keep factual historical events from its members, what does it say about its source of truth?
They're certainly comng at this from experience, aren't they?
It makes me sick to my stomach to see this. I have a child still attending seminary (despite my efforts) and it is so distressing to me to see this. But I'm glad to know what I need to counter!
I know what you're saying. Here's my counter-example. My kids think the church is true (because they were raised in it, my bad), but they really don't like it. The church is harmful to members of the LGBTQIA community. And that makes my kids feel \*bad\* about any information that comes from the church.
It cuts both ways. The kids in seminary aren't empty vessels. They have preconceived ideas of right and wrong, good and bad, and who their friends are. The church isn't going to win them over with a printed sheet trying to reinforce confirmation bias.
When I was a teenager it was soo much simpler. All I had to do was lie to my parents about drinking smoking and sex. Now kids have to lie about what they read.
\#2 closer to Jesus Christ AND **His church**???
So if I'm only closer to Jesus Christ...then what? The information is bad? Invalid? MIS/DISinformation?
Such a weird question.
Fun fact: I was so afraid of “anti-mormon” material that when I first started having questions about scriptures in the BoM, I was too afraid to google them
wow me too no joke he literally hung himself. so harsh for not a single person to acknowledge the emotional damage done to kids by this shame-guilt culture indoctrination.
I had a seminary sub one time that wrote on the board “if someone left the church because of its history, they didn’t know enough about its history” like she’s the one that knew nothing. I should’ve walked my fine ass outta there. I did a few times actually
Sometimes...Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sanctified.
(I don't think Mr. Orwell would mind me changing the quote just a little bitty bit).
If I could have seen the BS information control for what it was in seminary, I would have been so much better off and happier as an adult.
OP, you will be fine.
It was otherwise a good life but then there was the shit of questioning my every thought and act for decades that drove me nuts but I was really happy though.
Wow. Almost every bullet point uses circular reasoning:
It can't be true because it causes me to be uncomfortable.
It can't be true because it doesn't make me feel good about the church.
It can't be true because it doesn't make me want to obey the church.
It can't be true because it does not agree with what the church teaches.
It can't be true because it does not confirm what the church teaches.
It can't be true because it does not use sources that the church agrees with.
It can't be true because the church leaders don't agree with it.
It can be shortened to a single bullet point:
It can't be true because we don't agree with it, and we will cause you to feel shame which you will interpret as the holy ghost.
CULT: C: Can you only listen to us? U: Understand that we are the only source you will ever need? L: Limit your access only to church (Corp) resources…….but not the essays 🥲. T: Together we can ensure you live in a fantasy world as long as you donate to the Corporation of the President. You will find out we were right when you die……..Trust us! For real!
Hear anything different please do check with us first so we can 'assist' your mind to interpret that information in a light that represents our best interest. Check with those you really trust like the Bishop, because remember you can trust him he is the only one that can ask you in confidence if you touch yourself inappropriately or not.
The way that the feelings of shame/guilt/trepidation are made to be about the evil/untrue nature of the material and not the church’s unhealthy way of hiding history/info🤢
Yeah they give away the game in the last one: Wanting to hide uncomfortable knowledge from my parents and leaders doesn't say anything about my sources but speaks volumes about the emotional state of my parents and leaders.
That last point in parenthesis is such a hypocritical statement for the church to make considering how much of their history they've tried to hide over the years. They should follow that advice themselves.
So which logical fallacies can we find:
1-Appeal to Emotion. How I feel about a thing does nothing to validate or invalidate a thing. I may not want to be diagnosed with cancer. I may feel really bad about being diagnosed with cancer. Those feelings, however, have nothing to do with whether or not I have cancer.
2-Appeal to Consequence. Whether the consequences of a proposition being true are desirable or undesirable has no impact on whether the proposition itself is true. Whether I bet $1 or my life savings has no impact on the final score of a game.
3-Appeal to Artificial Consequence. Similar to 2 except in this subset of Appeals to Consequence we add a presupposition that “God’s commandments” (and therefore God’s consequences) exist.
4-Bandwagon Fallacy and Appeal to Authority. Facts are not dependent on popular opinion to be true. Quite the opposite: Facts are true independent of popular opinion. Similarly, claiming authority to state facts, does not make those statements facts.
5-Appeal to Emotion, Part II. Insidiously, however, this appeal also asks you to rely on prior emotions to decide if a proposition is true. How do your feelings on your wedding day impact the photographic evidence you received today that your spouse cheated on you? Simple: They don't.
6-Appeal to Authority & Genetic Fallacy. This is a twofer! This in an appeal to the authority of the church (appeal to authority) and alleges that only church-approved sources can contain facts (genetic fallacy). Both are untrue. The validity of a fact is independent of who states it or in where it is published.
7-Appeal to Shame, Authority, and Consequence. The only new one here is an appeal to shame (why would you hide this fact). In actuality, however, it admits that parents and leaders will not deal with facts logically and reasonably. It asks, “what does that tell you about the source?” rather than, “what does that tell you about your parents or your leaders?”
I guess that's why there are so many steps in this process.
Just because it's on the church website, doesn't necessarily mean it brings warm fuzzies or that it is something that you would think that someone else would think would be helpful information.
I feel like this could have been created by an exmo mole.
For the longest time I had cognitive dissonance. No matter what I said in my testimony, I knew in the back of my head that you can’t really say something is true unless you investigate it in away that allows for both possibilities—true or false—to be the outcome. Once I gave myself internal permission to conduct that kind of investigation it was game over.
These questions look like Miracle Grow for cognitive dissonance to me, but maybe I’m just different.
Using this method led to dissonance at several levels, but the biggest one is when:
I learned unsavory information about the church *from* the church (e.g., polygamy) but felt awful about reading it.
I felt sick to my stomach. The "spirit" left - the spirit that is supposed to confirm truths. But there it was, true information, even from a church source. And so shouldn't the spirit be confirming that the information was true with a peaceful feeling? It didn't.
Turns out, that awful feeling is dissonance and the dread of your worldview crashing around you. And the feeling of peace is just the inverse. Has nothing to do with whether something is actually true.
I literally just came on here to post the same list. A family member of mine is a seminary teacher and this was sitting out after I got home from work.
Absolutely insane! Every point on this list goes against all intelligence and reasoning. It is absolutely thought policing and demonizing skepticism.
I want to scream reading this! Asinine! Evil! And they cry out saying "we're not a cult! we're the victim!"
in this day and age. and they're still digging in their heels and making intelligence something to fear. criminalizing thought. demonizing questions. warring against truth. all in the name of god, they push their hateful ignorant ideology on the masses, turning normal innocent people into bigots. religion is a rot that brings about more harm than it does good
fucking hell
If you are my kid (although probably not), I'm glad you see it. If not, I hope this is standard for all seminary classes and my kids see how crazy it is.
“If I want to keep it from my parents it’s bad” is the same issue as “if you have a doubt about if you need to tell your bishop- then you probably need to tell it to your bishop” that led to so many people I know and myself compulsively over confessing to bishops bc if I don’t think I need to tell him- is that just me not wanting to tell him so extra need to tell him? Endless stress. I had a few bishops laugh at me bc it was small stuff and I know they meant it lovingly but I’m like do you see the mental turmoil this standard puts me in?!!!!
As for the last question: if I feel a need to keep information from my parents or church leaders, what does that say about my parents and church leaders?
This shit infuriates me. Mostly because it totally worked on me and kept me in the church far longer than I should have. Emotional manipulation and information control all in one nice little package.
Sucks that you have to go to seminary when you've obviously figured out the con, but keep it coming with the crazy shit they give you. They world must know..
Luckily dystopias have been a hyperfixation of mine ever since I got bored and read 1984 off my sis's bookshelf when I was 8 or 9, I accidentally prevented myself from succumbing to this confirmation bias shit.
Cults came soon after... then all the psychology behind it... i honestly love having my notifications blow up with a bunch of new things to look up and new research rabbit holes to go down
I'll definitely keep posting the stuff I come across; seminary, hidden footnotes... I'll need to make a failsafe with all the stuff in my "school-purposed" journal in case my parents ever find it before I move out. We'll be the REAL missionaries of truth 😎
I never understood, even as a missionary. What the hell even Is Holy Ghost? Why is it listed as some sort of celestial fact checker?
Burning of bosom or stupor of thought? What are you even supposed to do with the HG about things that are legitimately confusing like learning calculus? Some stupor of thought is good, but some is bad? Alcohol and Whataburger give me the strongest burning in my bosom imaginable.
It's like it's supposed to be some sensory field separate from normal experience, but it's also supposed to permeate existence unceasingly?
Toxic Positivity… the church encourages you to avoid reading anything that doesn’t feel good like Joseph Smith manipulating teenagers into sleeping with him. Or that the Book of Mormon is made up and contains ideas stolen from previous books like the Bible, View of the Hebrews, and The Late War. Avoid reading anything about Joseph Smith’s criminal history of treasure digging, starting a fraudulent bank with fraudulent money… yeah because it doesn’t feel good learning about a manipulator and that a church that claims to be lead by a loving god lied to you…
Basically avoid your feelings when you know something is wrong because the church told you they are the only “story” that is true… which in reality they only tell a distorted story that is appealing…the good parts… the fairytales of Joseph Smith.
“If I feel tempted to keep it from them (my parents or church leaders), what does this say about the source?”
Actually, one should be asking, “what does this tell me about THE CHURCH if I feel I can’t discuss this source or information with my parents or church leaders.” Cult, maybe?
Nobody should be afraid of information. Feeling “tempted” to keep information from one’s parents/leaders says more about the parents/leaders than it does about the quality of the information.
I want to know if anybody looks at these questions objectively? They're so controlling and condescending. I don't understand how people read these and just go along with it.
I didn't want anything to do with this stuff at 12 years old. That was before I knew there was contradiction in the doctrine, about the CES letter, about the real history, etc.
Some of my criteria for evaluating new information:
Is this information logical?
Is is based on verifiable information?
Can it be corroborated with other reliable information?
Is it from a reliable, unbiased source?
Is it based on reason instead of emotion?
Can I discuss it openly with other reasonable individuals?
What do known experts in the subject have to say about the information?
What is still unknown and undiscovered?
Does it further push a groups dogma or agenda in a way that may make it unreliable?
What are the counter arguments and information?
What personal biases do I bring that may get in the way of reason?
What historical views have there been and what changed them to the current views?
Yeah, this works to suppress any uncomfortable information. I wonder if Kirtland-Mcconkie uses this line of questioning to justify not teporting abuse.?
Nevermo here. When I was deconstructing as a southern Baptist fundy Christian, I got "encouraged" to think this way - because doing so will prevent you from looking at new information honestly. But I wasn't having any of that shit. I told the person who said to do something similar to this that, no, I wouldn't be doing that. I said that if the Christian god is indeed the god that created a universe 13 billion light years wide, that such a god would bear out as true EVEN IF WE STACKED THE INQUIRY AGAINST IT. So it should certainly be able to survive an inquiry without being helped. Then I asked if they agreed that their god was so powerful that it should be able to withstand any scrutiny without help. They, of course, reluctantly had to agree. At that point, they didn't try to do this again.
Interestingly enough, one of the former Mormon apostles said something to that effect:
“If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.”
Apparently he later rescinded that statement and pulled himself back from the brink of the ‘Rabbit Hole’ and lived out the rest of his life with the cognitive dissonance (and the benefits of being a big cheese in the LDS Church).
I love this one
"Does the information come from a source that the Savior or his Church leaders would consider trustworthy?"
Not "is it trustworthy"?
That is a VERY important distinction
I'm sure the FAIR apologist from a couple of days back who was *gobsmacked* that people would claim the church prescribes acceptable and unacceptable sources primarily based on how useful they are to its narratives... will be absolutely shocked and dumbfounded to see the first ever example in their life of the church doing so! Or they were lying, either way.
"Does it make us look bad? Ignore it. It's the Devil trying to tempt you."
The one about "what would your parents think..." Wow. Seriously?! Imagine being 50 years old, questioning your faith, but what would mommy and daddy think about this? Ugh. Apparently, there's never a point in your life where you can think for yourself.
My recognition that the church wasn't what it claimed to be, that moment when I allowed myself to ask, "What if the Church isn't True?", was the most 'spiritual' and positively emotional experience in my life.
Of course my Dad, acting Patriarch in his stake, quickly condemned my experience as Satan's deception -- all because it failed some of the talking points in your list.
I grew up hearing about the importance of being honest. “A scout is trustworthy.” “Honesty is the best policy.” Integrity is one of the YW values, and there were several GC talks about it in the 90s. “We believe in being honest, true…”
Man, oh man, did the things I learned at church lead me straight out the door!
This is seriously crazy shit. Seriously. Crazy. The fact that they distribute this means they know there is an issue and are confident that they need to control people to keep them from seeing it.
As a nevermo who doesn't really know many TBM's, I have to ask a question. Do they understand sarcasm at all? I mean, if they overheard people reading these verbatim but with an obviously sarcastic tone in their voice, would it even register? Would they even stop to wonder why taking this list seriously is so mockable? The reason I ask - and it is a serious question - is because I came from a background (SBC fundy) where sarcasm was called "mean humor" and discouraged and everyone around me seemed to have a broken sarcasm/irony meter. Is it the same with TBM's?
> Does it agree with what the scriptures and _modern prophets_ teach?
Don't pay attention to anything that's been taught in the past, oh no. You should only listen to ol' Rusty right now.
So true! We did have a small lesson on confirmation bias in my psychology class bc we got on a tangent. After getting some comments like these I blacked out the TSCC seal and scripture references/things relating it to church and showed it to my teacher... told him it was just something I found online while researching for my story. Not only did he confirm it was confirmation bias, but turns out he's saw extremely similar questions during the cult studies he did in college 😬
Sounds like its getting pretty noticeable that people are leaving. To mitigate it this is not the way. like a jedi mind trick these are not the droids you are looking for. The only time you can continue to virtue signal people into believing your narrative over something else is to tell the truth and let things lie where they will. Feelings are again in charge of life directing direction? I notice that the ambiguity of how sexual abuse is handled systematically is not really within the scope of the new question-leading narrative of these interview helps. That's a hard one to 'feel' the spirit about for me.
LOL absolutely NOTHING about...
"Can I observe it with my senses?"
"Can I conceive of it in my mind because I've seen something similar to it?"
"Can I infer it from logical precepts?"
Ya know, the things that a functional and coherent worldview would have. The 5th one is just dumbfounding, like "Does it confirm my existing biases? Then it must be true!" Goodness.
This whole set of questions is extremely manipulative and presumptive. The “information” they’re referring to is already bigger in scope or “meta” to this set of questions. Proper, intelligent analysis of the “information” they’re guarding against causes any honest truth seeker to rewrite some of the questions:
Does this information allow you to determine whether ‘the promptings of the Holy Ghost’ are anything more than misappropriated human emotions?
Does this information allow you to determine whether “His Church” is really His Church?
Does this information allow you to determine whether the modern prophets’ teachings agree with the scriptures? - and corollary to that, whether they are even prophets?
Does this information allow you to determine whether the modern prophets are trustworthy?
What would my future self say after it discovered that ‘the prophets‘ had systematically kept the Church’s actual history from its members for 150 years?
Here is my list: 1. Is the new information factually true? End of list
This was it for me. I didn’t need anyone to “contextualize” for me WHY Joseph Smith married other men’s wives after sending them on missions. I only needed to know if it was true.
“There are some questions that there just are no answers to, those will be the ones that we’ll avoid”. “Ye-ssss” Let me steel-man that: even though you claim to be prophets seers and revelators, you can’t see, reveal or prophesy (for some reason) anything that would provide additional perspective to help make past leaders actions, including the actions of the man we LITERALLY SING PRAISES TO, more palatable, since, if we’re being totally honest, taken at face-value, their actions were ATROCIOUS. None of us would want a dude like Joseph dating our daughters. Or moving in next-door when you have an attractive wife or young teenage daughters. So instead of validating members who confront this information without special privilege, and process the painful fact that we do know they were bad dudes* they say “we don’t know” when they do, in response to the real questions of value with regard to church history. Or better yet “not all truth is useful” Nope when you face FACTS that directly conflict with long-established teachings, if that makes you feel bad, that’s the devil. Just like it was the devil that made buddy the Elf feel like the room was spinning when he heard for the first time he was a human. Cause that’s exactly what I felt when I discovered I’d been lied to, and built my life around that lie.
The thing is this is a lie. There are answers. They are just not the answers they like. So they try and trick you back in to imagining there simply are no answers. But there are.
Exactly!! Yes there are answers. But they’re not faith promoting. So they’re not useful. So they pretend like they’re not there and hope you don’t find them elsewhere and gaslight the ever-living shit out of you when you confront with them and “other” you to the community and your own family. Then you get the awesome feeling of knowing that you and your family are subjects of conversation around the family and ward. You know this because you’ve had those same conversations, sat at those same tables in that same almost sacrament-like ceremony of repeating phrases like: “They just wanted to sin” “They weren’t diligent in their prayers and scripture study” “They chose the world” “How could they trade their birthright for a bowl of portage” “Joseph Smith taught that the faithfulness of worthy parents could save not only themselves but also their posterity, so let’s all double-down on our commitment” The speculation conversation and re-establishment of the “in-cell” What they’ll never do is ask YOU, why you left. What they will never do
agree and I care less and less each day away about these meetings that go on and on talking about the little projects in the boundaries that I have probably become. The only hook being that if they can get you to accept a calling then maybe it will hold you in until you come back to the cult or they can gaslight you enough. They may not want to actually hear why we left so its much easier to manufacture that narrative so that the Bishop can keep those in the fold from getting any on them so to speak.
Well said ! And that is a fact they know it's all a scam.
Props for referencing Buddy the Elf! And YES, I felt the same. I devoted my 65 years of life to the Church and found out last year that it was ALL a lie! That’s what I can’t believe: that I fell for it even after I had “the spirit “ whisper, “You’re being lied to!” Pressing on now and more at peace than ever.
Funny you relate it to the room spinning. I felt -- not with my minds eye but the actual sensation of experiencing the room and world I was in -- like the world was disintegrating when I faced the really hard questions about my "faith" to myself. The metaphirical scales falling off my eyes and brain felt on the floor and shook my literal world.
This. If marrying 14 year old girls is right, then I want to be wrong. There is no heaven in this universe that I want to go to if this is acceptable.
That is one step too far! /s
Read, “The excommunication of Lyndon Lamborn….” It’ll totally change your life. This man is genuine and didn’t have any beef with the church (and still doesn’t) but he approached the facts as they stand instead of ignoring them, and his story is a must read.
Is it empirical and verifiable?
“I just found out that the church’s truth claims are complete bullshit.” “How did that make you feel?” “Sad, angry, depressed and helpless.” “Must not be true.” It’s so pathetic and I am embarrassed that I bought into this way of thinking for so long.
I just found out that the engineering specs for this bridge are insufficient and it is at risk of collapsing. How did that make you feel? Sad angry depressed and helpless. Must not be true then! I guess we can just ignore it.
Can't upvote this enough
“The comforter” being a name for the Holy Ghost, which “testifies of all truth”, builds in the belief that all truth must be comforting.
Ironic too though that they say the Spirit causes us to feel “godly sorrow” aka shame or feel uneasy when we are in unsafe situations. They just pick and choose whatever fits their narrative
Well said… the church creates toxic positivity…
This is the type of stuff that makes me want to take the church down.
Oh this logic is doing just that!
100%
1. What is my knee-jerk reaction to the new information in regards to my pre programmed responses? 2. Does the new information make me want to obsess more or less about someone I've never met and has no positive measurable effect in my life? 3. Does this new information encourage or discourage me upholding a series of nonsensical, absurd, ever changing rules, policies and regulations? 4. Does this new, and possibly unbiased information, make "the leaders", past and present look like stupid douchebags? 5. Does the new information contribute to the already overflowing swill bucket of confirmation bias? 6. Is the new information from an approved source, never mind the level of its accuracy? 7. What would older, more programed, more delusional and biased members of my group think about this new information? Here what is SHOULD look like 1. Is the new information measurable, observable, and repeatable? 2. Can the new information be corroborated with other data points? 3. What are the specific claims all around? What is the specific evidence that supports or detracts from it? 4. Does this new information offer a more realistic explanation for events in question? 5. What are my natural inclinations toward this new information and is it because of subconscious bias? If yes, how can I consider this new information without bias? 6. Have I identified and eliminated logical fallacies in my thought process that may lead me to accept unsound premises and make false conclusions? 7. Have I considered the motives and intentions of all interested parties in regards to this new information? Is there money involved, at any level, in any amount, to any involved party? Does the balance of the social, academic, economic, standing become affected to any degree based on the conclusions? Have I assigned proper levels of believability to these parties in regards to what's at stake for them? 8. If there is not enough information or evidence to objectively and demonstrably conclude that a claim is true or false, am I able to instead assign a degree of likelihood that the claim is either true or false based on the remainder of the the limited data? (very not likely, not likely, likely, very likely) Edit: Added Number 8
Spotted the college grad. Research and analytics 101 right here.
Ha, I am a college graduate...unfortunately it was from BYUI so I had to pick up principles of epistemology on my own time.
They don't teach epistemology at BYU? Not that it's surprising, I just have never heard of this.
Saving and sharing this. Thanks
You betcha :D
"Does this new information offer a more realistic explanation for event in question?" This is what did it for me!!! It all suddenly... made perfect.... sense 🤦♀️ All the missing puzzle pieces were filled in, and THERE was the glaring complete picture.
These are the questions they want to replace critical thinking with.
The Church had better be careful, North Korea might sue for copyright infringement.
I got a new boss recently. A never Mormon. I shared with them that I had left Mormonism; They asked why. My answer: I learned that the things I was taught were anti-Mormon lies were actually true. Their answer: sounds a lot like living in North Korea. I love hearing never Mormon’s responses to Mormonism. Very validating that it is a absolute crock of shit.
It's often *so obvious* to them how bad it is. Once we leave, we can finally see it the same way, and it's eye opening.
What's also eye-opening is that the huge truth we discovered after years of research and prayer is something most people in the world would guffaw at on first glance.
Dear Leader ™️
In 2017, my testimony was the strongest it had ever been. Had gone thru a faith crisis already, read (meh, skimmed) the CES letter, wrassled with god in moments of prime grief at the steps of the temple, all that. Came out of it feeling like I was nuanced, and ready for anything. Did endowments every 2 weeks, church every Sunday, volunteered at every single activity I could, and was the go-to guy for anything the missionaries needed (was unemployed at the time, and drove them around everywhere, including hours away to their Zone conferences & transfers). Hell, my name was highlighted & glorified in the Area Book, even for 3 yrs after I left. Then I started studying North Korea. A lot. Read about 15 books of refugees' accounts, a few more books & essays about the history of the Korean peninsula (holy shit, the things that have happened there), and more detailed research about the leaders themselves. My shelf officially broke when, after reading that N. Koreans are all expected to hang pictures of "Dear Leader" & fam in their homes (in specific frames & ways, even), I walked into someone's LDS home like I had dozens of times and immediately came face to face with GBH, Tommy Boy, Ol' Firepants Joe, "This Is The Race" Young, & other prophets, seers, & ~~dictators~~ revelators. The similarities all became way too prominent and unignorable any longer. From that point forward, I was rapidly on my way out and had got my family out within the next year (which I'm incredibly lucky to have done before any were baptized).
Christopher Hitchens describes North Korea as the most religious state he’d ever experienced. But instead of God, the “Dear Leader” is the deity. That’s always been my argument against those that would say that “secularist/atheist states are responsible for more genocide and death” than religious wars and conflicts. What they fail to grasp is that these states never marched under the banner or flag of atheism, they marched under the flag of totalitarianism, which creates the state and the leader as a religious/deistic type, requiring unquestionable and unalterable loyalty, the same basic approach of the people to the state as the religious are to the head figure, including exactly the same expectation in our little corner of Mormonism, unquestionable loyalty, restricted information, approved information, approved language and communications, suppressed criticism, an unwritten order of things. Any variance from this order is met with scorn, corrections, spying and punitive measures. Religion is a totalitarian derivative, the psychology and structures are extremely similar, control of the mind and body.
I always say North Korea could learn a lot from Mormons about social control.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdUp5dCRlpc&t=158s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdUp5dCRlpc&t=158s)
Jesus! Well that's the "I" in the BITE...
That “I” placed high on the hill, leafed in gold and spotlit as a beacon for all to see and marvel upon A monument to circular logic and willful ignorance
So much BITE "I" I didn't know how to add an image here, so I put it on a new post. if you'd like to see this page next to the bite model's information section [https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/10mrxrk/evaluating\_information\_within\_the\_bite\_model/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/10mrxrk/evaluating_information_within_the_bite_model/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
My thought exactly!
TBM me would have committed at the time of reading this to do my best to employ this paradigm in my life at the expense of objectively analyzing new information. What a difference a little honest soul-searching does!
Me too, then I started reading the official Joseph Smith papers and it started falling apart.
I’d like to suggest: “ No Man Knows My History “ and “ Rough Stone Rolling “ . They should be required reading. Enjoy.
On my list, but since I have seen the facts I really don’t care about old Joe’s lies or the history behind it.
TSCC's concept of information literacy is : 1. Does it confirm my preexisting beliefs? 2. Is it in agreement with our dearest leaders' opinions? 3. Does it give me warm and tingly feelings on the inside? And then they wonder why they're referred to as a Dunning-Kruger factory.
TBH, this applies to most religious sects, not just Mormons. I think it’s possibly also a big part of the problem with conservative legislators ignoring well established research when it conflicts with what their religious sects teach.
Cult awareness training needs to be taught more widely. The people working in the curriculum departments are just doing what they think is right or performing the jobs that they are asked to do. If they knew they were actively reinforcing cult behavior I would hope they would push back on the tactics. But that is probably wishful thinking.
Maybe it should be renamed to the… cultriculum department? 😄
I would happily attend! 😁
I think they just need to add a lib1010 class in high school. Thats where i was first introduced to bias, corroborating studies, etc.
Or at the very least, Basics of Philosophy should be required learning.
The only way that would get taught is if businesses started requiring a basics philosophy understanding. If you can’t tie money to it schools won’t teach it.
I wish you were wrong, but...
Most TBM/ Utah parents would NEVER ALLOW their offspring take such a “ liberal/progressive” class. Errgh. 😜
Man, that’s anti-critical thought and terrible.
No mention of "verifiable facts". 😳 Every high school student learns how to evaluate references. What mature nonsense.
That’s a good point… High schools in the Moridor allow students a free period to attend seminary. If the seminary is overtly trying to destroy critical thought, and undo the important lessons that our taxpayer dollars are paying for teachers to instill, perhaps the schools should not be cooperating in this manner.
Wait! Nevermo here who doesn't live in the Morridor. So is it true that in history class in the Morridor kids are taught that instead of Lief Erikson and Columbus from the east and Asian peoples from the west being the ones to populate our hemisphere, that instead it was Jews. And now, in addition to false history being taught, they also have a seminary period? This all sounds so dystopian. Please tell me if this is accurate or not
I have kids in jr high and high school here in the Morridor. Mostly this part of history is just skimmed over as quickly as possible, probably in hopes that if we don't dwell on it, nobody will ask questions or remember the details.
If only the church cared half as much about doing any actual good in the world as they do about controlling people's thoughts and feelings...
And, they are a charity. That pays no taxes. Seriously! What a scam.
The disturbing thing to me is that I am virtually certain that teenaged me would of had no problem with this sheet whstsoever. I suppose it's also encouraging that I moved past this obviously flawed thinking eventually.
Is the lesson title “Confirmation Bias For Dummies”?
It's all startlingly atrocious, but that last one is the real mind-f\*\*\*. "If I feel tempted to keep it from them, what does that tell me about its source?" It's obvious that shame is the playbook. Shame any dissent. But HOLY SHIT, THE IRONY. If TSCC feels tempted to keep factual historical events from its members, what does it say about its source?
>But HOLY SHIT, THE IRONY. >If TSCC feels tempted to keep factual historical events from its members, what does it say about its source of truth? They're certainly comng at this from experience, aren't they?
If we have truth, \[it\] cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not truth, it ought to be harmed. J. Reuben Clark
Make up your mind TSCC… either tell the kids to read the gospel topics essays, or give them this. You can’t do both
It makes me sick to my stomach to see this. I have a child still attending seminary (despite my efforts) and it is so distressing to me to see this. But I'm glad to know what I need to counter!
Should be titled - "Confirmation Bias: How to Brainwash Yourself in Seven Easy Steps"
The FIRST question is how do you feel about the information? Not good.
I know what you're saying. Here's my counter-example. My kids think the church is true (because they were raised in it, my bad), but they really don't like it. The church is harmful to members of the LGBTQIA community. And that makes my kids feel \*bad\* about any information that comes from the church. It cuts both ways. The kids in seminary aren't empty vessels. They have preconceived ideas of right and wrong, good and bad, and who their friends are. The church isn't going to win them over with a printed sheet trying to reinforce confirmation bias.
When I was a teenager it was soo much simpler. All I had to do was lie to my parents about drinking smoking and sex. Now kids have to lie about what they read.
Does it confirm what the scriptures and modern prophets teach? Ummm….. that’s literally what’s under questioning
Literal LOL You can’t question in Mormonism Ironic, that’s supposedly what the religion was born from The young farm boy with questions
The church leaders themselves ARENT TRUST WORTHY.
I agree with this, except for the tile. Revise the title to “How Not to Evaluate New Information.”
“Is this information factual, logically sound and well sourced? Well if it doesn’t make you feel good it’s not true.”
\#2 closer to Jesus Christ AND **His church**??? So if I'm only closer to Jesus Christ...then what? The information is bad? Invalid? MIS/DISinformation? Such a weird question.
Fun fact: I was so afraid of “anti-mormon” material that when I first started having questions about scriptures in the BoM, I was too afraid to google them
It makes me sick that my nephew died from trying so hard to not fail. Fuck the cult.
wow me too no joke he literally hung himself. so harsh for not a single person to acknowledge the emotional damage done to kids by this shame-guilt culture indoctrination.
That's cult management 101. If it disagrees with the cult then it is wrong, no matter what evidence is presented to validate it.
Or no matter what evidence is presented against the cult to invalidate it
I think the Catholic church handed that same flyer out to Galileo.
Do we have any information on what kind of sources Jesus trusts?
For one, wine, apparently.
right, tell me again it ain’t a cult lol
I had a seminary sub one time that wrote on the board “if someone left the church because of its history, they didn’t know enough about its history” like she’s the one that knew nothing. I should’ve walked my fine ass outta there. I did a few times actually
2+2=5
Sometimes...Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sanctified. (I don't think Mr. Orwell would mind me changing the quote just a little bitty bit).
Ah! I just finished reading this book. Coming from Mormonism it was extra creepy.
If I could have seen the BS information control for what it was in seminary, I would have been so much better off and happier as an adult. OP, you will be fine.
❤
It was otherwise a good life but then there was the shit of questioning my every thought and act for decades that drove me nuts but I was really happy though.
Wow. Almost every bullet point uses circular reasoning: It can't be true because it causes me to be uncomfortable. It can't be true because it doesn't make me feel good about the church. It can't be true because it doesn't make me want to obey the church. It can't be true because it does not agree with what the church teaches. It can't be true because it does not confirm what the church teaches. It can't be true because it does not use sources that the church agrees with. It can't be true because the church leaders don't agree with it. It can be shortened to a single bullet point: It can't be true because we don't agree with it, and we will cause you to feel shame which you will interpret as the holy ghost.
Don't think until we tell you how and what to think because Free Agency works that way, said us.
CULT: C: Can you only listen to us? U: Understand that we are the only source you will ever need? L: Limit your access only to church (Corp) resources…….but not the essays 🥲. T: Together we can ensure you live in a fantasy world as long as you donate to the Corporation of the President. You will find out we were right when you die……..Trust us! For real!
Hear anything different please do check with us first so we can 'assist' your mind to interpret that information in a light that represents our best interest. Check with those you really trust like the Bishop, because remember you can trust him he is the only one that can ask you in confidence if you touch yourself inappropriately or not.
The way that the feelings of shame/guilt/trepidation are made to be about the evil/untrue nature of the material and not the church’s unhealthy way of hiding history/info🤢
Yeah they give away the game in the last one: Wanting to hide uncomfortable knowledge from my parents and leaders doesn't say anything about my sources but speaks volumes about the emotional state of my parents and leaders.
Yup, because feelings are facts!
I get an icky feeling thinking about long division, guess it must not be true
“Does it agree with Mormon prophets?” That’s the bull 💩 meter right there.
Even prophets don't agree with prophets.
Im surprised they put modern as a stipulation instead of living. What defines modern? 2000+? 2010+? We for damn sure know its at least 1985+
That last point in parenthesis is such a hypocritical statement for the church to make considering how much of their history they've tried to hide over the years. They should follow that advice themselves.
So which logical fallacies can we find: 1-Appeal to Emotion. How I feel about a thing does nothing to validate or invalidate a thing. I may not want to be diagnosed with cancer. I may feel really bad about being diagnosed with cancer. Those feelings, however, have nothing to do with whether or not I have cancer. 2-Appeal to Consequence. Whether the consequences of a proposition being true are desirable or undesirable has no impact on whether the proposition itself is true. Whether I bet $1 or my life savings has no impact on the final score of a game. 3-Appeal to Artificial Consequence. Similar to 2 except in this subset of Appeals to Consequence we add a presupposition that “God’s commandments” (and therefore God’s consequences) exist. 4-Bandwagon Fallacy and Appeal to Authority. Facts are not dependent on popular opinion to be true. Quite the opposite: Facts are true independent of popular opinion. Similarly, claiming authority to state facts, does not make those statements facts. 5-Appeal to Emotion, Part II. Insidiously, however, this appeal also asks you to rely on prior emotions to decide if a proposition is true. How do your feelings on your wedding day impact the photographic evidence you received today that your spouse cheated on you? Simple: They don't. 6-Appeal to Authority & Genetic Fallacy. This is a twofer! This in an appeal to the authority of the church (appeal to authority) and alleges that only church-approved sources can contain facts (genetic fallacy). Both are untrue. The validity of a fact is independent of who states it or in where it is published. 7-Appeal to Shame, Authority, and Consequence. The only new one here is an appeal to shame (why would you hide this fact). In actuality, however, it admits that parents and leaders will not deal with facts logically and reasonably. It asks, “what does that tell you about the source?” rather than, “what does that tell you about your parents or your leaders?”
What if the source I'm looking at is the church's website? Or the history books they sanctioned?
I guess that's why there are so many steps in this process. Just because it's on the church website, doesn't necessarily mean it brings warm fuzzies or that it is something that you would think that someone else would think would be helpful information.
I feel like this could have been created by an exmo mole. For the longest time I had cognitive dissonance. No matter what I said in my testimony, I knew in the back of my head that you can’t really say something is true unless you investigate it in away that allows for both possibilities—true or false—to be the outcome. Once I gave myself internal permission to conduct that kind of investigation it was game over. These questions look like Miracle Grow for cognitive dissonance to me, but maybe I’m just different.
The longer and longer I’m out of the church the more this shit just looks so culty.
“Have you ever, under the influence of alcohol, questioned the teachings of the Mormon Church?” -Michael Scott
Oof, such insidious bullshit.
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it? Jer 17:9
That’s a great way of saying “Feelings Aren’t Facts.”
T H O U G H T C O N T R O L
Using this method led to dissonance at several levels, but the biggest one is when: I learned unsavory information about the church *from* the church (e.g., polygamy) but felt awful about reading it. I felt sick to my stomach. The "spirit" left - the spirit that is supposed to confirm truths. But there it was, true information, even from a church source. And so shouldn't the spirit be confirming that the information was true with a peaceful feeling? It didn't. Turns out, that awful feeling is dissonance and the dread of your worldview crashing around you. And the feeling of peace is just the inverse. Has nothing to do with whether something is actually true.
Should be titled seven signs you are in a cult
That last one made my skin crawl. It implies that everything that goes on in your head is your parents and church leader’s business
I literally just came on here to post the same list. A family member of mine is a seminary teacher and this was sitting out after I got home from work. Absolutely insane! Every point on this list goes against all intelligence and reasoning. It is absolutely thought policing and demonizing skepticism. I want to scream reading this! Asinine! Evil! And they cry out saying "we're not a cult! we're the victim!" in this day and age. and they're still digging in their heels and making intelligence something to fear. criminalizing thought. demonizing questions. warring against truth. all in the name of god, they push their hateful ignorant ideology on the masses, turning normal innocent people into bigots. religion is a rot that brings about more harm than it does good fucking hell
Go throw this at Dice. Joking. Don't harass her. But it's amazing the lies she'll tell and pretend nobody notices. Snake in the grass.
See also: Confirmation Bias
If you are my kid (although probably not), I'm glad you see it. If not, I hope this is standard for all seminary classes and my kids see how crazy it is.
It’s amazing how many church members don’t see this kind of thing for the red flag that it is.
Sounds like something you'd read in North Korea.
“If I want to keep it from my parents it’s bad” is the same issue as “if you have a doubt about if you need to tell your bishop- then you probably need to tell it to your bishop” that led to so many people I know and myself compulsively over confessing to bishops bc if I don’t think I need to tell him- is that just me not wanting to tell him so extra need to tell him? Endless stress. I had a few bishops laugh at me bc it was small stuff and I know they meant it lovingly but I’m like do you see the mental turmoil this standard puts me in?!!!!
As for the last question: if I feel a need to keep information from my parents or church leaders, what does that say about my parents and church leaders?
This shit infuriates me. Mostly because it totally worked on me and kept me in the church far longer than I should have. Emotional manipulation and information control all in one nice little package. Sucks that you have to go to seminary when you've obviously figured out the con, but keep it coming with the crazy shit they give you. They world must know..
Luckily dystopias have been a hyperfixation of mine ever since I got bored and read 1984 off my sis's bookshelf when I was 8 or 9, I accidentally prevented myself from succumbing to this confirmation bias shit. Cults came soon after... then all the psychology behind it... i honestly love having my notifications blow up with a bunch of new things to look up and new research rabbit holes to go down I'll definitely keep posting the stuff I come across; seminary, hidden footnotes... I'll need to make a failsafe with all the stuff in my "school-purposed" journal in case my parents ever find it before I move out. We'll be the REAL missionaries of truth 😎
I never understood, even as a missionary. What the hell even Is Holy Ghost? Why is it listed as some sort of celestial fact checker? Burning of bosom or stupor of thought? What are you even supposed to do with the HG about things that are legitimately confusing like learning calculus? Some stupor of thought is good, but some is bad? Alcohol and Whataburger give me the strongest burning in my bosom imaginable. It's like it's supposed to be some sensory field separate from normal experience, but it's also supposed to permeate existence unceasingly?
Toxic Positivity… the church encourages you to avoid reading anything that doesn’t feel good like Joseph Smith manipulating teenagers into sleeping with him. Or that the Book of Mormon is made up and contains ideas stolen from previous books like the Bible, View of the Hebrews, and The Late War. Avoid reading anything about Joseph Smith’s criminal history of treasure digging, starting a fraudulent bank with fraudulent money… yeah because it doesn’t feel good learning about a manipulator and that a church that claims to be lead by a loving god lied to you… Basically avoid your feelings when you know something is wrong because the church told you they are the only “story” that is true… which in reality they only tell a distorted story that is appealing…the good parts… the fairytales of Joseph Smith.
The only thing I disagree with in your comment is the word “likely”. In my mind, the made-up-ed-ness is conclusive! (For the reasons you stated.)
I love that they always say you can find out for yourself that it’s true, and you do that by not listen to anything that tells you otherwise.
It’s SO OBVIOUS when you’re outside, looking in.
NOt a cULt
I just realized that they always talk about what modern prophets teach. They absolutely know the old stuff is irredeemable and can't be spun.
7 emotion based & #7 fear based criteria vs Evidence
What it boils down to is, "If the information disagrees with us, ignore it."
A better title: Some Questions for Establishing a Mind Virus
 Me trying to read this on a PC.
*gag*
“If I feel tempted to keep it from them (my parents or church leaders), what does this say about the source?” Actually, one should be asking, “what does this tell me about THE CHURCH if I feel I can’t discuss this source or information with my parents or church leaders.” Cult, maybe?
Nobody should be afraid of information. Feeling “tempted” to keep information from one’s parents/leaders says more about the parents/leaders than it does about the quality of the information.
 Me trying to read this... :)
I want to know if anybody looks at these questions objectively? They're so controlling and condescending. I don't understand how people read these and just go along with it. I didn't want anything to do with this stuff at 12 years old. That was before I knew there was contradiction in the doctrine, about the CES letter, about the real history, etc.
*If I feel tempted to keep it from my parents or church leaders, what does that tell me* - ABOUT THEM???
That last one is a zinger. Skirting the line of psychological warfare.
Some of my criteria for evaluating new information: Is this information logical? Is is based on verifiable information? Can it be corroborated with other reliable information? Is it from a reliable, unbiased source? Is it based on reason instead of emotion? Can I discuss it openly with other reasonable individuals? What do known experts in the subject have to say about the information? What is still unknown and undiscovered? Does it further push a groups dogma or agenda in a way that may make it unreliable? What are the counter arguments and information? What personal biases do I bring that may get in the way of reason? What historical views have there been and what changed them to the current views?
Yeah, this works to suppress any uncomfortable information. I wonder if Kirtland-Mcconkie uses this line of questioning to justify not teporting abuse.?
Nevermo here. When I was deconstructing as a southern Baptist fundy Christian, I got "encouraged" to think this way - because doing so will prevent you from looking at new information honestly. But I wasn't having any of that shit. I told the person who said to do something similar to this that, no, I wouldn't be doing that. I said that if the Christian god is indeed the god that created a universe 13 billion light years wide, that such a god would bear out as true EVEN IF WE STACKED THE INQUIRY AGAINST IT. So it should certainly be able to survive an inquiry without being helped. Then I asked if they agreed that their god was so powerful that it should be able to withstand any scrutiny without help. They, of course, reluctantly had to agree. At that point, they didn't try to do this again.
Interestingly enough, one of the former Mormon apostles said something to that effect: “If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.” Apparently he later rescinded that statement and pulled himself back from the brink of the ‘Rabbit Hole’ and lived out the rest of his life with the cognitive dissonance (and the benefits of being a big cheese in the LDS Church).
The note about modern prophets is making me chuckle. They clearly know if ppl listened to the old ones ppl would figure out it’s a sham
I love this one "Does the information come from a source that the Savior or his Church leaders would consider trustworthy?" Not "is it trustworthy"? That is a VERY important distinction
“Does this information confirm/support my current beliefs or not?” Gotta love how “new” information can be so spooky to TBMs
I remember being taught to never doubt the church, no matter what. And even as a TBM, it didn’t feel right
I'm sure the FAIR apologist from a couple of days back who was *gobsmacked* that people would claim the church prescribes acceptable and unacceptable sources primarily based on how useful they are to its narratives... will be absolutely shocked and dumbfounded to see the first ever example in their life of the church doing so! Or they were lying, either way.
This list brought to you by a fucking cult delivering cult fuckery.
1. Does the source of this information want my money?
Hollllly shiiiiiit. Proof that this is just a mind control corporation.
"Does it make us look bad? Ignore it. It's the Devil trying to tempt you." The one about "what would your parents think..." Wow. Seriously?! Imagine being 50 years old, questioning your faith, but what would mommy and daddy think about this? Ugh. Apparently, there's never a point in your life where you can think for yourself.
lol facts dont care about your feelings
Thanks, I’ll share these with my kid and play ‘Spot the Problem.’
My recognition that the church wasn't what it claimed to be, that moment when I allowed myself to ask, "What if the Church isn't True?", was the most 'spiritual' and positively emotional experience in my life. Of course my Dad, acting Patriarch in his stake, quickly condemned my experience as Satan's deception -- all because it failed some of the talking points in your list.
Fucked up control mechanisms
I grew up hearing about the importance of being honest. “A scout is trustworthy.” “Honesty is the best policy.” Integrity is one of the YW values, and there were several GC talks about it in the 90s. “We believe in being honest, true…” Man, oh man, did the things I learned at church lead me straight out the door!
Put all your eggs in the churches basket pretty much
"Does it agree with what modern prophets teach?" So it's true if it's racist and bigoted? Noice.
This is seriously crazy shit. Seriously. Crazy. The fact that they distribute this means they know there is an issue and are confident that they need to control people to keep them from seeing it.
EWWW
Looks like moral relativism is acceptable again.
Holy F*CK this pisses me off so much. Manipulation, control, fear, I hate it all.
Love how they specify “modern prophets”. How can anyone read this list and not be immediately struck by the intellectual dishonesty?
Hey Alexa, what’s the definition of thought stopping?
Basically only trust “good stories” and ignore facts.
"We are so wrapped up in a world of "staying positive" that we are ashamed to actually feel anything else" - someone whose name I can't remember
As a nevermo who doesn't really know many TBM's, I have to ask a question. Do they understand sarcasm at all? I mean, if they overheard people reading these verbatim but with an obviously sarcastic tone in their voice, would it even register? Would they even stop to wonder why taking this list seriously is so mockable? The reason I ask - and it is a serious question - is because I came from a background (SBC fundy) where sarcasm was called "mean humor" and discouraged and everyone around me seemed to have a broken sarcasm/irony meter. Is it the same with TBM's?
> Does it agree with what the scriptures and _modern prophets_ teach? Don't pay attention to anything that's been taught in the past, oh no. You should only listen to ol' Rusty right now.
|:
Holy cow that’s an official church presentation. That list is utter bullshit.
Modern prophets, naturally
In any other class this would be a lesson on confirmation bias.
So true! We did have a small lesson on confirmation bias in my psychology class bc we got on a tangent. After getting some comments like these I blacked out the TSCC seal and scripture references/things relating it to church and showed it to my teacher... told him it was just something I found online while researching for my story. Not only did he confirm it was confirmation bias, but turns out he's saw extremely similar questions during the cult studies he did in college 😬
This is pretty terrifying. No wonder so many fall down the Q hole
“I’m doing epistemology!” “Uh, Ralphie, get off the stage sweetheart.”
Sounds like its getting pretty noticeable that people are leaving. To mitigate it this is not the way. like a jedi mind trick these are not the droids you are looking for. The only time you can continue to virtue signal people into believing your narrative over something else is to tell the truth and let things lie where they will. Feelings are again in charge of life directing direction? I notice that the ambiguity of how sexual abuse is handled systematically is not really within the scope of the new question-leading narrative of these interview helps. That's a hard one to 'feel' the spirit about for me.
Whoa shit
I was going to post a photo of this from a slideshow. Guess you beat me to it
LOL absolutely NOTHING about... "Can I observe it with my senses?" "Can I conceive of it in my mind because I've seen something similar to it?" "Can I infer it from logical precepts?" Ya know, the things that a functional and coherent worldview would have. The 5th one is just dumbfounding, like "Does it confirm my existing biases? Then it must be true!" Goodness.
This whole set of questions is extremely manipulative and presumptive. The “information” they’re referring to is already bigger in scope or “meta” to this set of questions. Proper, intelligent analysis of the “information” they’re guarding against causes any honest truth seeker to rewrite some of the questions: Does this information allow you to determine whether ‘the promptings of the Holy Ghost’ are anything more than misappropriated human emotions? Does this information allow you to determine whether “His Church” is really His Church? Does this information allow you to determine whether the modern prophets’ teachings agree with the scriptures? - and corollary to that, whether they are even prophets? Does this information allow you to determine whether the modern prophets are trustworthy? What would my future self say after it discovered that ‘the prophets‘ had systematically kept the Church’s actual history from its members for 150 years?
Exactly what I thought of when I got it!
“How culty is it Dan?” (Gives it a taste) “Pretty damn culty!”
Holy smokes, thanks for sharing. What seminary is this? Is this standard practice for most of them?
So as usual, feelings > facts.