MDDB poll

[_Polygamy-Porter]

Does EScott happen to be related to F. Scott?

If I recall correctly, that is Liz from here.

[_Fence Sitter]

Why is this controversial? Even for MAD?
It is merely asking if Church members have family who have left the Church. It is not asking why they left.
Frankly I am surprised to see as many "none" responses as there are. Given activity rates of under 30% it seems likely that most people would have at least someone in their family who has left.

[_Markk]

Why is this controversial? Even for MAD?
It is merely asking if Church members have family who have left the Church. It is not asking why they left.
Frankly I am surprised to see as many "none" responses as there are. Given activity rates of under 30% it seems likely that most people would have at least someone in their family who has left.

I don't know if it is controversial, I think it just supports the current rumors of a GA crisis over attendance and apostasy.

It is also refreshing that FAIR is allowing this...if anything it is slightly shocking to some. The Moplogists will say similar to what you wrote..."I thought it would be more...what is the big deal?"

[_Markk]

If 64% of family members have left... from a poll on a TBM site, then what is the percentage of less than TBM families? point being...is 4 million active members, as most people put it, fair?

I would wager 95% or more of those that leave never have their names removed.

[_Runtu]

I started a thread over there about the panel discussion at the upcoming FAIR conference, wondering what the goal would be and who would be on it. Apparently, suggesting that having an unbeliever's perspective might possibly be helpful was taken as the height of effrontery. I received a bit of a scolding from DCP, no less.

[_Fence Sitter]

I started a thread over there about the panel discussion at the upcoming FAIR conference, wondering what the goal would be and who would be on it. Apparently, suggesting that having an unbeliever's perspective might possibly be helpful was taken as the height of effrontery. I received a bit of a scolding from DCP, no less.

Even more bizarre is the suggestion from Scott Lloyd that it is not possible to find a cordial ex Mormon to participate in that panel discussion. Especially amusing was the poster Walden mimicking Lloyd's own post back at him and Scott jumping all over it.

But an apologetics conference? I can't realistically see such a thing happening without the ex-Mormon or ex-Mormons on the panel holding forth with all manner of justifications, excuses, rationalizations, attacks against the Church, lists of ways in which he had been wronged, etc. Maybe a long history of reading discussion boards about Mormonism has conditioned me to be cynical in that respect.

So instead of having an ex-mormon represent a viewpoint on a topic of ex-mormon family members, the apologists will kid themselves with "all manner of justifications, excuses, rationalizations, attacks" against the "apostate", including "lists of ways in which" the apostate had wrongly gone about seeking the truthfulness of the LDS faith, how the apostate didn't have the strength to live up to the church's high standards, how the apostate left the church because he/she just wanted to sin, etc., etc.



Maybe a long history of reading discussion boards about Mormonism has conditioned me to be cynical in that respect.

Well, I'll just say that, when it comes to productive and civil discourse, I find faithful Latter-day Saints as a group to be far more trustworthy than I do vitriolic ex-Mormons. (Your own post here is a telling illustration.)

Walden's post was intentionally a mirror image of your post. Pot meet Kettle.

I don't concede that it is a fair reflection of what I wrote, but alas, it is the sort of thing I would expect from an ex-Mormon being placed on a panel at the FairMormon Conference. And why I wouldn't expect that sort of thing to work out very well.

I wonder if Scott realizes he is the common factor is in all his discussions with ex-Mormons.

[_Runtu]

I wonder if Scott realizes he is the common factor is in all his discussions with ex-Mormons.

I think he really thinks we ex-Mormons are evil. He once told me I had made a conscious decision to follow Satan. The sad thing is that he is everything he accuses us of being: angry, attacking, divisive, aggrieved, victimized, and so on.

[_Gadianton]

Why is this controversial? Even for MAD?
It is merely asking if Church members have family who have left the Church. It is not asking why they left.
Frankly I am surprised to see as many "none" responses as there are. Given activity rates of under 30% it seems likely that most people would have at least someone in their family who has left.

Seems about right from my experience. Not only am I the only member of my immediate family that has "left" (still on the books) I am not aware of any aunts/uncles or cousins from either side of the family who have left nor have I heard any gossip about anyone having any doubts. There is a good mix of extremely wealthy to professional and tradesmen to dirt poor, and down on luck or disabled. The combined activity rate is probably around 50% and there are several open sinners, but all to my knowledge basically believe the church is true. Over the years, I might hear about so-and-so who was at church for the first time in a decade intent on putting life back together. Activity is strongest among those who are financially successful and have good careers. Those who fall into less activity also invariably have life issues: unsustainable lifestyles, employment problems, alcohol issues, sickness caused by poor lifestyle choice, or not necessarily any of the above but broken family - dad or mom up and ran off with someone else and shacked up or got knocked up and fell away. So the TBMs think they have perfectly awesome reasons to say "look what happens when you fall away from the Church." Interestingly, however, none of that falling away seems to include any questioning. No one goes to another church. I've never heard of any claiming to be an atheist. Just me lone-doggin' it. My Hollywood atheism is common knowledge I think on either side of the family, although no one knows any details.

[_Markk]

I think he really thinks we ex-Mormons are evil. He once told me I had made a conscious decision to follow Satan. The sad thing is that he is everything he accuses us of being: angry, attacking, divisive, aggrieved, victimized, and so on.

My guess is, and only a guess based on my personal exodus...is that while I "pretended" that apostates were evil, in my heart I really didn't...I was just scared to think that anything less than evil, let alone good, could leave the church.

Again my guess is he is scared to face the reality that good folks leave for solid reasons.

[_Fence Sitter]

I think he really thinks we ex-Mormons are evil. He once told me I had made a conscious decision to follow Satan. The sad thing is that he is everything he accuses us of being: angry, attacking, divisive, aggrieved, victimized, and so on.

My guess is, and only a guess based on my personal exodus...is that while I "pretended" that apostates were evil, in my heart I really didn't...I was just scared to think that anything less than evil, let alone good, could leave the church.

Again my guess is he is scared to face the reality that good folks leave for solid reasons.

I would not say that he is scared to face reality, I would say he finds it easier to dismiss what ever questions his version of faith by attacking the messenger rather than considering that rational people can come to different conclusions. His ridiculous protestations that a cordial conversation is not to be had between believers and apostates is a reflection of himself, not of the people with whom he disagrees.