Stoidela never made a separate argument or claim based on her experiences. She reported her own personal experiences which in her judgment confirmed my ealier assertion. It is not proof of my assertion, and she even stated so. This is not only valid, but necessary for one reason: she is not a Mormon and that qualifies as objective in this case. She has no personal stake in these claims. As an exmormon I have no personal stake in my claims either. I am not selling a replacement, and there is even incentive for me to remain silent because Mormons would have me permanently silenced if they controlled the internet tomorrow (it does not matter if anyone else believes this last claim, it only matters if I believe it).
I left for logical reasons, since reason and logic are natural and important to me, and as such I gave my reasons and logic. Mormons here who feel compelled to censor(!) or discredit me, also feel comfortably exempt from offering their reasons for believing that it is the only true church, and this too is a mindset of being self-righteously Mormon. I also counter-assert that not only is Mormonism NOT TRUE TO ITS CLAIMS, but it is a detriment to its members, and possibly society at large if their claims go unchecked.
Again, to recap my counter-assertions:
I assert that the vast majority of Mormons involuntarily pay tithing not as alms (nor is it officially claimed to be), but for other emotional reasons unrelated to the concept of charity, such as heavenly threats or rewards. What is some objective evidence? The Mormon church would not be listed as “Somewhere in the middle of the fortune 500 companies” (quoted from Time Magazine) with tens of billions in UNKNOWN assets if they were interested in alms giving, and there would be no demand on poor families to pony up 10-15% of their budgets (families which are extra-large due to influences in Mormonism). This spiritually compulsory “donation” affects not only real charities, but discounts other revenues such as taxes used for schools. As I emphasized, Mormons place an undue burden on schools by their mindless adherence to patriarch figures who have so much control over them as to directly influence how many kids they should have.
I assert(ed) that Mormons are a psychological mess, lacking a better way to describe it. What do I mean by this? I mean that they are squandering their personal developmental potential and its public expression, and are generally incapable of fully living happily and productively with or without Mormonism. This is a double-bind of sorts created through childhood teachings that destroy the ability to think for oneself, and adult influences that do not allow them to consider other options in line with their personality. The Mormon hierarchy is living proof of conformity and single-mindedness. When Mormons leave, they are essentially outcast from other Mormons and often their own families and spouses in both discreet and legal ways.
I also assert that there is not one shred of evidence to bolster the incredibly self-serving claims that Mormon founders have made, and to the contrary, there is enough evidence to completely destroy their flimsy case and prove them frauds and sex-creep charlatans. Why do people want to believe them? That is their business. I mainly object to making it compulsively universal, ie, that it is the only true way for all people based on: 1. Religious superiority, 2. A false racist history of both natural and human events, 3. Undemocratic mind-control values for themselves and for a demonized society at large. Note: Mormonism is in no way based on philosophical choices preferred by each individual, and I wouldn’t waste my time contradicting a church or religion if such was the case. Leaving Mormonism is not merely discouraged by withdrawal of heavenly rewards, but by the most dire heavenly threats. Many consider suicide their best option.
To all who disagree: I look forward to intellectual discussion. To all who say I have no right to present my views on this matter: I question both your motives and your ethics.
(Just kidding.) Rose, men are fallible and human, no matter what high office they may hold. The current prophet isn’t perfect. Nor was the one before him, or the one before the one before him. If a prophet says something erroneous, it’s his responsibility to make the error known. That’s the nature of his office. Fallibility is part of being human.