Bailey83221 (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} bailey83221) wrote,@ 2004-12-05 20:14:00 |
|
Mormonism is a fraud
-As my web blog evolved, I removed the original political information found here to another location but retained this link because of unrelated comments attached to this posting.
Later, after many people express to me their transition stuggles out of Mormonism, I decided to post information on how I left here, to help others -
I built this web blog page because a lot of people I met on Mormon sites seemed to be going through the same steps that I went through, leaving the church, and needed the support and fellowship that I never had:
I wish live journal was around when I left the church (mid-90's), the transaction was horrible for me, and very lonely, people need each other.
Leaving Mormonism is such a big step and large transaction:
Support groups and people who have taken the same path as you are taking right now
People who are at the same point as you may be
(See the discussion below with some other ex-Mormons and doubting Mormons)
A site for those who are Questioning their faith in the Mormon Church "And for those who need support As they transition their lives to a normal life. We are not affiliated with any religion and we do not advocate any religion. 220+ Stories of ex-Mormons"
How can I find other former Mormons to talk to?
Post-Mormon Identity, the steps (from lj user menemni)
http://atheists-of-utah.org/
Quest for the Gold Plates: Thomas Stuart Ferguson's Archaeological Search for the Book of Mormon This book talks about how one of the most prominent Mormon archeologists lost his faith, but still stayed in the church, becoming a closet doubter.
Doctrine of the church criticized
The premier source that made me realize the church was not true is the scholarly quarterly journal Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought . The entire collection is available at the USU library, and I read every issue back to its start in the 1960’s. I spent three times time studying the church than doing homework when I was in college.
A less scholarly magazine/journal, which has more essays and articles which focus more on social issues instead of doctrine, is Sunstone.
Introduction to the book By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri, the most devastating book about the church ever written, the entire book is available online on this site.
Mormon Polygamy: A History Very scholarly, evenhanded work (Found in Deseret Book), discusses how Joseph Smith would propose to married women.
2think.org (This guy took the same path I did in leaving the church)
Richard Packham, former Mormon who is now an atheist
Studies against the church from some fundamentalist Christians
Funny
You know you’re an Ex-Mormon when....
Filling the resulting Void in your life
After I left the church, their was a “belief void” in my life, which needed to be filled by something Some people fill this void with other Religious beliefs, I filled it in with Science.
Carl Sagan's books, such as
The Demon-Haunted World, Science as a Candle in the Dark really helped me realize the supremacy of Science over religion.
A History of the Warfare of Science With Theology in Christendom/2 Volumes in One (Great Minds Series) (Amazon site) This is a classic on the subject showing how historically Science always wins, yet religion always continues despite being proven wrong.
This book is available for free to download here:
Project Gutenberg (downloads slowly)
http://www.skeptic.com/
Penn and Teller’s series “Bullshit” on Showtime, the first few seasons are available at Netflix.com
Economist: Evidence that psychopaths are born, not made
Below is yet another article that flies in the face of religion's idea of "sin": "Evidence that psychopaths are born, not made".
If a person is born to be a psychopath, just like a person is born to be a homosexual, indeed, if much of who we are is chemicals in the brain, doesn't this completly contradict the concept of "sin" and "choice" that most of Christianity embraces? If you are a psychopath from birth and your psychopathic rages are controled by your genes, where does "sin" and "choice" come in? Doesn't a backwards belief in "sin" actually hinder society from treating of these mentally ill?
As Carl Sagan said:
"It used to be believed that every event in the world-the opening of a morning glory...was due to direct microintervention by the Deity. The flower was unable to open by itself.God had to say “Hey, flower, open.” [Today]...because we know something about phototropism and plant hormones, we can understand the opening of the morning glory independent of divine mícrointervention...As we learn more and more about the universe, there seems less and less for God to do." --Broca's Brain: Reflections on the Romance of Science by Carl Sagan, page 334-335
Of course, as history shows, Christian apologists, will first attack these findings, then Christianity as a whole will, slowly, over generations, find someway to bend their beliefs to fit the overwhelming facts. [For an excellent book on the history of Chrisitianty blocking important technological and scientific advancements see A History of the Warfare of Science With Theology in Christendom, above]
Economist, May 26th 2005
Evidence that psychopaths are born, not made
RESEARCHERS at the Institute of Psychiatry, in London, are not shy about tackling controversial topics. One of them, Terrie Moffitt, was responsible for studies that showed how different versions of the gene for one of the brain's enzymes resulted in different predispositions to criminal activity. Another, Robert Plomin, found the first plausible candidate for a gene that boosts intelligence. Now, Dr Moffitt and Dr Plomin have been helping two other researchers, Essi Viding and James Blair, with an equally high-profile study—one which asks whether psychopaths are born that way, or are made so by their upbringings
That, of course, is rather a crude way of putting it. After decades of debate, biologists have come to understand what was blindingly obvious to most laymen—which is that rather than being shaped by nature or nurture, most behavioural traits are the result of an interaction between the two. Nevertheless, one or the other can still be the dominant factor. And the study in question, to be published in June's edition of the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, suggests that in the case of psychopathy, the genetic side is very important indeed.
The four researchers have drawn their conclusion from a study of twins. The twins in question are on the books of a long-term project known as the Twins Early Development Study (TEDS), which has been following several thousand twins since their births in 1994 and 1995. Among other things, many of the twins in TEDS have been assessed both for a tendency to bad behaviour (“conduct disorder”, in the argot of the field) and for the display of what are referred to as callous-unemotional traits, such as a lack of feelings of guilt after doing something wrong, or not having at least one good friend. In adults, callous and unemotional traits are symptoms of psychopathy, and those who display such traits in childhood frequently keep them into adult life. The assessments were done by the children's teachers, whom years of experience have shown are more objective and accurate than a child's parents.
As is well known, twins come in two varieties: fraternal, in which the individuals have half their genes in common, just like ordinary siblings, and identical, in which the individuals have all their genes in common. This means that behavioural traits with a large genetic component are more likely to be shared by identical twins than fraternal twins. Conversely, those traits with a large environmental component will be shared by identical and fraternal twins in equal measure. Applying appropriate statistical techniques to the actual amount of shared behaviour observed allows the relative contributions of genes and environment to be worked out.
Based on the teachers' assessments, the researchers identified the naughtiest 10% of the individuals in their sample—in other words those with severe conduct disorder. They then subdivided these children into those with psychopathic traits and those without and asked, in each case, whether an individual's twin showed bad behaviour, psychopathy, or both.
Their analysis showed that bad behaviour without psychopathy has relatively little genetic component—less than a third. By contrast, four-fifths of the difference in behaviour between the general population and children with psychopathic traits seems to lie in the genes.
All of this raises interesting questions. On a practical level it suggests that bad behaviour needs to be handled differently in different children, and will be much harder to eradicate if associated with psychopathic traits (though that does not mean that parents and teachers should not try). On an intellectual level, it asks about the origins of psychopathy.
Though the genes in question have yet to be identified, this result suggests they are too abundant to be there by chance—in other words they are being kept in the population by natural selection because psychopathic behaviour confers a selective advantage. If it does, such an advantage probably pertains only when psychopaths are in the minority (a state of affairs known to biologists as a balanced polymorphism). But it does mean that far from being an aberrant behaviour, psychopathy may be disturbingly normal.
-As my web blog evolved, I removed the original political information found here to another location but retained this link because of unrelated comments attached to this posting.
Later, after many people express to me their transition stuggles out of Mormonism, I decided to post information on how I left here, to help others -
I built this web blog page because a lot of people I met on Mormon sites seemed to be going through the same steps that I went through, leaving the church, and needed the support and fellowship that I never had:
I wish live journal was around when I left the church (mid-90's), the transaction was horrible for me, and very lonely, people need each other.
Leaving Mormonism is such a big step and large transaction:
People who are at the same point as you may be
(See the discussion below with some other ex-Mormons and doubting Mormons)
A site for those who are Questioning their faith in the Mormon Church "And for those who need support As they transition their lives to a normal life. We are not affiliated with any religion and we do not advocate any religion. 220+ Stories of ex-Mormons"
How can I find other former Mormons to talk to?
Post-Mormon Identity, the steps (from lj user menemni)
http://atheists-of-utah.org/
Quest for the Gold Plates: Thomas Stuart Ferguson's Archaeological Search for the Book of Mormon This book talks about how one of the most prominent Mormon archeologists lost his faith, but still stayed in the church, becoming a closet doubter.
The premier source that made me realize the church was not true is the scholarly quarterly journal Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought . The entire collection is available at the USU library, and I read every issue back to its start in the 1960’s. I spent three times time studying the church than doing homework when I was in college.
A less scholarly magazine/journal, which has more essays and articles which focus more on social issues instead of doctrine, is Sunstone.
Introduction to the book By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri, the most devastating book about the church ever written, the entire book is available online on this site.
Mormon Polygamy: A History Very scholarly, evenhanded work (Found in Deseret Book), discusses how Joseph Smith would propose to married women.
2think.org (This guy took the same path I did in leaving the church)
Richard Packham, former Mormon who is now an atheist
Studies against the church from some fundamentalist Christians
You know you’re an Ex-Mormon when....
After I left the church, their was a “belief void” in my life, which needed to be filled by something Some people fill this void with other Religious beliefs, I filled it in with Science.
Carl Sagan's books, such as
The Demon-Haunted World, Science as a Candle in the Dark really helped me realize the supremacy of Science over religion.
A History of the Warfare of Science With Theology in Christendom/2 Volumes in One (Great Minds Series) (Amazon site) This is a classic on the subject showing how historically Science always wins, yet religion always continues despite being proven wrong.
This book is available for free to download here:
Project Gutenberg (downloads slowly)
http://www.skeptic.com/
Penn and Teller’s series “Bullshit” on Showtime, the first few seasons are available at Netflix.com
Economist: Evidence that psychopaths are born, not made
Below is yet another article that flies in the face of religion's idea of "sin": "Evidence that psychopaths are born, not made".
If a person is born to be a psychopath, just like a person is born to be a homosexual, indeed, if much of who we are is chemicals in the brain, doesn't this completly contradict the concept of "sin" and "choice" that most of Christianity embraces? If you are a psychopath from birth and your psychopathic rages are controled by your genes, where does "sin" and "choice" come in? Doesn't a backwards belief in "sin" actually hinder society from treating of these mentally ill?
As Carl Sagan said:
"It used to be believed that every event in the world-the opening of a morning glory...was due to direct microintervention by the Deity. The flower was unable to open by itself.God had to say “Hey, flower, open.” [Today]...because we know something about phototropism and plant hormones, we can understand the opening of the morning glory independent of divine mícrointervention...As we learn more and more about the universe, there seems less and less for God to do." --Broca's Brain: Reflections on the Romance of Science by Carl Sagan, page 334-335
Of course, as history shows, Christian apologists, will first attack these findings, then Christianity as a whole will, slowly, over generations, find someway to bend their beliefs to fit the overwhelming facts. [For an excellent book on the history of Chrisitianty blocking important technological and scientific advancements see A History of the Warfare of Science With Theology in Christendom, above]
Economist, May 26th 2005
Evidence that psychopaths are born, not made
RESEARCHERS at the Institute of Psychiatry, in London, are not shy about tackling controversial topics. One of them, Terrie Moffitt, was responsible for studies that showed how different versions of the gene for one of the brain's enzymes resulted in different predispositions to criminal activity. Another, Robert Plomin, found the first plausible candidate for a gene that boosts intelligence. Now, Dr Moffitt and Dr Plomin have been helping two other researchers, Essi Viding and James Blair, with an equally high-profile study—one which asks whether psychopaths are born that way, or are made so by their upbringings
That, of course, is rather a crude way of putting it. After decades of debate, biologists have come to understand what was blindingly obvious to most laymen—which is that rather than being shaped by nature or nurture, most behavioural traits are the result of an interaction between the two. Nevertheless, one or the other can still be the dominant factor. And the study in question, to be published in June's edition of the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, suggests that in the case of psychopathy, the genetic side is very important indeed.
The four researchers have drawn their conclusion from a study of twins. The twins in question are on the books of a long-term project known as the Twins Early Development Study (TEDS), which has been following several thousand twins since their births in 1994 and 1995. Among other things, many of the twins in TEDS have been assessed both for a tendency to bad behaviour (“conduct disorder”, in the argot of the field) and for the display of what are referred to as callous-unemotional traits, such as a lack of feelings of guilt after doing something wrong, or not having at least one good friend. In adults, callous and unemotional traits are symptoms of psychopathy, and those who display such traits in childhood frequently keep them into adult life. The assessments were done by the children's teachers, whom years of experience have shown are more objective and accurate than a child's parents.
As is well known, twins come in two varieties: fraternal, in which the individuals have half their genes in common, just like ordinary siblings, and identical, in which the individuals have all their genes in common. This means that behavioural traits with a large genetic component are more likely to be shared by identical twins than fraternal twins. Conversely, those traits with a large environmental component will be shared by identical and fraternal twins in equal measure. Applying appropriate statistical techniques to the actual amount of shared behaviour observed allows the relative contributions of genes and environment to be worked out.
Based on the teachers' assessments, the researchers identified the naughtiest 10% of the individuals in their sample—in other words those with severe conduct disorder. They then subdivided these children into those with psychopathic traits and those without and asked, in each case, whether an individual's twin showed bad behaviour, psychopathy, or both.
Their analysis showed that bad behaviour without psychopathy has relatively little genetic component—less than a third. By contrast, four-fifths of the difference in behaviour between the general population and children with psychopathic traits seems to lie in the genes.
All of this raises interesting questions. On a practical level it suggests that bad behaviour needs to be handled differently in different children, and will be much harder to eradicate if associated with psychopathic traits (though that does not mean that parents and teachers should not try). On an intellectual level, it asks about the origins of psychopathy.
Though the genes in question have yet to be identified, this result suggests they are too abundant to be there by chance—in other words they are being kept in the population by natural selection because psychopathic behaviour confers a selective advantage. If it does, such an advantage probably pertains only when psychopaths are in the minority (a state of affairs known to biologists as a balanced polymorphism). But it does mean that far from being an aberrant behaviour, psychopathy may be disturbingly normal.
