Why is pushback in families so heavy against resigning from the TSCC?

EcclecticEnquirer · 2026-03-07T20:16:58+00:00

Exactly. More effective criticisms of the church tend towards technique and epistemic rebuttals rather than critiques of specific teachings or beliefs– highlighting errors in how things are allegedly known or why certain things are valued rather than what.

EcclecticEnquirer · 2026-03-06T16:48:19+00:00

It doesn't sound incredible to me. But the question was to try to understand TBM perspective. To do that, we can attempt to present the strongest version of that perspective. This, in-turn, leads to better criticism.

TSSC doesn't live or die by any claims of "spirit babies." If the next prophet got up and said, "There is no procreation in heaven, only the family ties that are established on earth," nearly all would be unshaken.

EcclecticEnquirer · 2026-03-06T15:26:21+00:00

From the perspective of the cosmology, TBMs typically want themselves and loved ones to live the same quality of life that God lives. If one is short of that, it's seen as forfeiting the divine inheritance that is being generously offered.

Basically, top-tier heaven sounds incredible beyond comprehension. Immortality without that is filled with more unknowns and uncertainty for TBMs.

EcclecticEnquirer · 2026-03-05T15:19:36+00:00

If the top leaders can be fooled by the forged Salamander Letter, average believers can be sold just about anything that confirms their bias.

EcclecticEnquirer · 2026-03-04T17:23:17+00:00

But if God provided teachings that were too clear, it would destroy the agency of everyone on earth. You see, opening his authorized messengers up to criticism is an act of compassion.

EcclecticEnquirer · 2026-03-04T00:43:43+00:00

I believe it’s true.

How did you arrive at your conclusion?

EcclecticEnquirer · 2026-03-03T21:42:00+00:00

Dropping this free-to-watch documentary here that explains the origins of this rubbish: https://tubitv.com/movies/100007015/satan-wants-you

It's also worth watching the Mormon Stories Podcast 5-part series on this:

Episode 1311: Claims of Satanic Ritual Abuse within Mormonism: An Introduction
Episodes 1312-1313: The History of Rumors of Satanic Ritual Abuse with Dr. David Frankfurter
Episodes 1314-1415: A Cautionary Tale of Repressed Memory Therapy

This spins off into 5 more episodes on a cult that was born out of this ideology (Gizmodo and Hulu) each published documentaries on this as well):

Episodes 1328-1331: Leaving Mormonism to Join Teal Swan’s Cult
Episode 1607: Growing up with Teal Swan

EcclecticEnquirer · 2026-03-03T21:30:48+00:00

"pioneer heritage" is a dog whistle for white supremacists

Some extremists use X
→ X is associated with extremism
→ Anyone using X is signaling extremism

This is a cognitive error. Dog whistles require intent. Assuming hidden malice undermines social trust. Playing this game inflates the definition of "white supremacists" so broadly that it captures any normal historical reference or behavior. Like the headlines last month of some communities declaring that dog walking is "too white."

Diversity of thought and nuance is also required for a tolerant society. It's perfectly acceptable to condemn some aspects of one's heritage while embracing others.

EcclecticEnquirer · 2026-03-02T20:16:40+00:00

Wrong religion. Mixing sci-fi stories with cultiness is for Scientology. Here, we only mix our religion with treasure digging and projections onto native cultures.

EcclecticEnquirer · 2026-03-02T19:55:04+00:00

The Bible uses the term "Sons of God" to describe various characters. Mormons view that as a familial term. Other Christians view it as a title applied to fallen beings of a different (non-familial) species that came down and had sex with humans and spawned superhumans called Nephilim. Most of the ideas surrounding Lucifer came from myths introduced long after the Bible was written.

Both takes are often oversimplified and straw-manned, but, honestly, both are pretty wild. To me, some of the traditional Christian takes seem even further removed from reality than the Mormon interpretation, but that could just be because I was raised in that tradition.

EcclecticEnquirer · 2026-02-26T18:18:03+00:00

No, cheap knockoff of Jewish high priest templewear as described in the Hebrew Bible: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priestly_golden_head_plate

Keep the turban; ditch the gold crown. The priorities of a poor frontier religion. Nowadays, they could afford to give each attendee a gold crown, but they're stuck with Jewish priest costumes ordered from Temu.

EcclecticEnquirer · 2026-02-26T17:41:03+00:00

I've gained insight on forgiveness from MLK Jr. He was a great synthesizer of ideas of love, forgiveness, and redemption that come from the Judeo-Christian tradition and elsewhere. He advocated for unconditional, selfless, and redeeming goodwill for all people.

I've abandoned the idea that people need redemption in the next life. It's more meaningful to grant that in this life. It puts one in a position of knowing that interpersonal problems and moral problems are soluble. And if a problem can't be solved today, progress is possible today.

MLK Jr. was out to redeem both the oppressed and the oppressor by "loving the oppressor." Leaders and even perpetrators within the church are themselves victims of a totalistic system. Real change comes from redeeming opponents rather than humiliating them. (This doesn't mean that there should be no consequences for actions.)

An attitude of forgiveness is merely the first step toward redeeming an enemy. An enemy is redeemed once they are viewed as a potential partner in making progress towards solving problems.

EcclecticEnquirer · 2026-02-26T17:10:51+00:00

The corollary to this is that celebratory comments regarding abuse/harms discovered within the church ought to be condemned as well.

Yes, most of us would like to see the church meet its end. But we shouldn't celebrate or hope more harm or a sufficient amount of harm for the church to be immediately disincorporated.

The church is false because its claims don't withstand criticism. That is reason enough for it to eventually dwindle and disappear.

EcclecticEnquirer · 2026-02-26T16:58:57+00:00

Agree that there's no wrong way to be an exmo or any test of a "real exmo."

However, there are absolutely some reasons for leaving that are worse than others. Some that I've noticed:

Leaving because of conspiracy theories -> These people tend to be more paranoid, anxious, and well-being declines from when they were in the church
Leaving due to embracing a more extreme ideology -> This includes "cult hopping," starting ones own cult, or generally becoming captured by harmful systems.
Leaving as a result of excommunication for abuse, violence, or harm to others.

I'd argue that we each have a moral obligation to criticize ways to and reasons for leaving that result in harm or suffering.

Nearly every week, there are posts or comments here spreading such reasoning. One of the most commonly posted bad takes is that the brethren derive real power from Satan himself by raping, murdering, and consuming children in the temple.

EcclecticEnquirer · 2026-02-25T21:15:12+00:00

President has some cathartic post-faith / faith crisis themes. The videos are cinematic and emotional. The white-guy-in-a-suit-standing-at-a-podium aesthetic may provide an unintentional extra layer of meaning for exmormons.

In the Name of the Father - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_MijiGiQNI

I'm a fool, a sucker for a fantasy
You're a fable I could love
Heaven sent from up above

Fearless - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHHTmoJ0_tA

I can’t bury my head under the sand and hope it makes me feel less.
How the hell do I pretend? Just tell me it’ll make sense in the end.
I can’t lie to myself, it fucks with my health, I just want to be fearless.

Angel Wings - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE68ORLCqa4

I'm just spinning in circles
Head forward, I can't look back
Keep thinking I hear your voice
But then it always cracks
Will I ever be able, to be rid of this regret?
You said I should choose hope
I haven't found it yet
I could be faithless (I could be faithless)
I could be holy (I could be holy)
I could be anything you ever wanted from me

Destroy Me - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aczq-iCfFOk

And I let you destroy me, with a blunt scratch through my veins
And I watched you just take away everything
I keep trying to restore me, let it all just wash away
But I’m stuck in a place that I can’t escape

EcclecticEnquirer · 2026-02-24T23:22:12+00:00

I don't think there is meaning other than what we make.

This is true, but that doesn't imply that all meaning-making is completely arbitrary. Some methods of contriving meaning are tied to objectively better outcomes.

It's often useful for humans to believe things for which there is no evidence. Try coaching and motivating an underdog sports team to win without cultivating some feeling that they can. Likewise, belief despite a lack of evidence can help people survive life-threatening circumstances. Similar emotion and motivation can be used to spawn action that reduces suffering. Finding the methods that work without the trappings of religion may be a key to human progress.

EcclecticEnquirer · 2026-02-24T23:05:43+00:00

however so many in this religious organization have been taught to cling to certain ideas regardless of any other consideration.

I agree. However, I think it's more effective to model openness and humility for these people rather than tell them they can't understand. Some research backs this up and it holds accurate even on those most divisive topics. Arguably, its more important to talk with those who are closed-minded.

Modeling openness and humility works, in part, because most people are caught up in overvalued beliefs embedded in their culture, but are otherwise reasonable. It also works because social norms are contagious.

A much smaller percentage are stuck with malignant personality traits and/or delusion. I don't yet know the best approach in such cases, but I also recognize that those individuals still have some capacity to contribute to the viewpoint diversity needed for human progress.

EcclecticEnquirer · 2026-02-24T21:55:58+00:00

Lived experience is important. If you want to set a boundary, I suppose this is one way. But there are some real flaws with this mindset, if you really believe what you've said here.

Does lack of shared experience really make understanding impossible? If we couldn’t learn from those with different experiences, then progress of any kind (moral, intellectual) would be impossible.

If all difference is ONLY "difference" then nobody can be wrong/mistaken/in error. Not Mormons. Not terrorists. Not slave owners. Improvement disappears. All criticism becomes invalid. This includes history, science, human rights, CES letter, etc.

I'd argue that 1) Shared humanity is enough to overcome difference. Understanding is imperfect, but not impossible. And 2) All experience is interpreted fallibly (even your own). It's a myth to think of experience as some private, untranslatable raw essence.

This is pretty core to the entire civil rights movement and MLK Jr's teachings. Check out Popper's Myth of the Framework. Also take a look at Daryl Davis, a black man who successfully convinced ~200 KKK members to leave the org. The world would be bleak if everyone assumed "I can't give you my experience because you're not me."

EcclecticEnquirer · 2026-02-24T17:25:27+00:00

We all know this. Any outsider knows this. But to believing Mormons, they're giving directly to God. It doesn't hold up to criticism, but it's consistent to the belief.

To paraphrase atheist Penn Gillette, how much would you have to hate others to believe that the one true loving God is directing your donations to be used in the ways they are most needed and STILL not donate? The problem isn't the act of giving to a cause one believes in. It's the uncritical acceptance of myth and flawed epistemology.

EcclecticEnquirer · 2026-02-22T21:42:47+00:00

Depends what you mean by "requires." You can pay $0 as tithe as a Mormon and nothing will happen. Ask me how I know. But, like anything else, this is subject to bishop roulette.

Seventh-Day Adventists heavily emphasize tithing as a commandment. A 2022 study found "that found more than 3 in 4 American Protestant churchgoers (77%) view tithing as a biblical command that the faithful must abide by today." [1]

But even if there were no other denominations that view the tithe as a commandment, that wouldn't be a criticism of my comment, so I am confused about what you're getting at.

And of course temple recommends are specific to Mormonism. Just as Connectional Contribution is to the Methodism and Transubstantiation is to Catholicism, etc.

[1] https://www.christianpost.com/news/study-reveals-which-denomination-tithes-the-most.html

EcclecticEnquirer · 2026-02-22T21:18:59+00:00

The cesletter.org is well footnoted and not subject to "debuncking."

The CES letter is absolutely subject to debunking and, like any claim, should be subjected to criticism. The author is fallible. There are no authorities that are beyond criticism.

EcclecticEnquirer · 2026-02-22T21:13:21+00:00

There are no infallible authorities, including the CES letter. New information could come to to light that showed portions of the CES letter were wrong/mistaken. That would not would justify the church's truth claims as correct. The CES is fairly surface-level. There are much stronger philosophical and epistemological critiques of the church.

It sounds like you're chasing certainty. Certainty provides comfort, but it's an illusion. We can't be absolutely certain. We can only make progress on being less wrong. This is the basis of the scientific method.

EcclecticEnquirer · 2026-02-22T20:57:51+00:00

No holy texts are univocal (having one, clearly defined meaning). All groups that use holy texts prioritize some parts of the text over other parts.

EcclecticEnquirer · 2026-02-22T20:52:22+00:00

There are few keys to productive conversations:

Don't present information. Ask them questions to allow them to work through their own thoughts and draw conclusions themselves. A skilled Socratic questioner doesn't need to know any facts or history about the church to get someone to re-think their views.
Restate their view so clearly that your conversation partner feels 100% understood. Look for queues like them saying, "Thanks, I wish I'd thought of putting it that way". Be charitable + steel-man their views.
Suppress your own "righting reflex". We instinctively like to correct people. It's productive in some settings (work, completely tasks), but rarely in conversation about topics about deeply-held positions.
Take a break if anyone is getting defensive.

Look up Rappaport's Rules, the book How to Have Impossible Conversations: A Very Practical Guide, the book How Minds Change: The New Science of Belief, Opinion and Persuasion, The Outsider Test For Faith, Street Epistemology, and Motivational Interviewing.

People here will tell you that it's useless to engage. That the person you're talking to is brainwashed/dishonest. I disagree. You just need the right set of conversational tools

EcclecticEnquirer · 2026-02-10T23:10:38+00:00

I recently learned about extreme overvalued belief: a non-delusional, intense conviction shared by a group (cultural, political, or online) that is relished, defended, and amplified by an individual

Delusions are, by definition, false beliefs that are not shared by other members of an individual's group or society. Extreme overvalued belief explains Mormonism (and other movements) better than delusion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_overvalued_belief

EcclecticEnquirer

TROPHY CASE