Anytime you're not a regular reader of a board you are handicapped in assessing it. Sure, if you visit RFM now and then and look for hate, trash, or silly people willing to believe anything as long as it reflects poorly on the LDS church, you'll find plenty to support your view. If I visited MAD and searched for a string of words that indicate LDS believe exmormons are inspired of satan, I'd find plenty to support my view. If I came to this board and did a search for a string of words to support whatever I had decided this board "is", I'd find it.
But reality is that there are many, many different sorts of people posting on RFM. There are posters who try to provide more balance. And there are posters who are emotionally reeling from losing their faith in Mormonism and need to talk about it. Of course the talk is going to be rough. Go to a divorce support group and you'll find the same thing. People are hurt and angry. But they need to process what has happened to them, and talking about it with others who understand does help. It wouldn't help if you never move beyond that phase, but, as even its critics often admit, the majority of posters on RFM stay there a while and move on. It fills its purpose for many people. For others, it becomes something else.
Back to the original topic, Ray, you seem to be saying of course Mormons are going to say these sort of things about exmormons, they have to because of their theology. You're probably right. Could I be right as well in saying that, no matter if it isn't going to change, that this is actually a significant part of the problem in continuing relationships between Mormons and exmormons? This belief about apostates that is so inherent to Mormonism that you cannot conceive of Mormonism changing it?
When people have lived their entire LDS lives hearing this bigotry against exmormons, and suddenly find themselves being an exmormon and realizing that what they were taught about exmormons and how people become exmormons was simply wrong - and more than wrong, insulting and damaging - what are they going to want to do? Yeah, they're going to want to try to prove to the people who are repeating these insults about people like them that there are plenty of legitimate reasons to leave the LDS church. And that is what you see when you decry people who keep dragging up the past. They are making a point. They want LDS to see there are legitimate reasons for losing faith in the LDS church. But LDS theology won't allow for that. So the cycle is set in stone. Fine, that's the way life is. I just am not going to let people like Wade get away with pretending that the problem is solely on ONE side of the fence, because he's just finding a slightly different way to say the same thing already encoded in Mormonism: there is nothing wrong with the LDS church, as least not to the extent to justify losing faith in it. So when people lose faith in the LDS church, something is wrong with THEM.
Calling on LDS to repent of bigotry
-
_beastie
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 14216
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Penn & Teller
http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
Penn & Teller
http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
-
_dartagnan
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 2750
- Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm
Ray I grew up Baptist as a teenager and I attended Catholic school in Germany when I was younger. My entire family is a mass of fragmented versions of Christianity. So I think I am in a pretty good position when I say this. Nothing compares to Mormonism in this regard, except for perhaps the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Catholics do not treat other ex-Catholics with contempt (and if they do, it isn’t because they are ex-Catholics). Baptists do not treat other non-Baptists with contempt. On the contrary, they tend to be exactly as I had expected many LDS to be, given the fact that the Mormon Church insists it is the one true CHRISTIAN Church. I see nothing Christian about the Mormon mentality of us vs. apostates. From its very roots Mormonism establishes this attitude that all doubters are “murmurers” like Laman and Lemuel. LDS scriptures are fraught with examples of apostates who we overcome by evil spirits, moreso than the Bible itself. Was Joseph Smith trying to institute a defense mechanism for the natural skepticism that would result from his various truth clams? Further, anyone who tries to think too critically about the truth claims of the Church is given into the “reasoning of men” and should repent. Yes, Mormonism shuns logical thought when applied to the Church. I know of no other faith except Islam that does this and DCP encourages it. His argument is fallacious at its core and he must realize this. To say this attitude is justified because the Church leaders say so and the Church leaders cannot be wrong in this regard, is nothing short of circular reasoning. It is no more compelling than the Evangelical argument that says the Bible is the perfect word of God because it says so. DCP spends enormous amounts of time pointing out logical errors in our critics, yet when all the dust has settled, he is no different from them. He is just as willing to give into fallacious reasoning as the next person, so long as it suits his theology.
The facts are plain. Baptist theology does not have an integrated system of contempt and rejection towards ex-Baptists, simply because they are ex-Baptists. Catholic theology does not have an integrated system of contempt and rejection towards ex-Catholics, simply because they are ex-Catholics. Going down the list of all other Christian sects and the same is true except for perhaps, a few tiny branches. Again, the only faiths that fit this category (immediately coming to mind anyway) are Mormonism, JWs and Islam.
Yes I became a “TBM” I suppose. I converted when I was only 19. I have an interesting conversion story that I used to post online, and I would receive all sorts of emails from struggling members who said my conversion story helped inspire them and strengthened their testimonies. I was rejected by my family when I became Mormon, but not because I became ex-Baptist. A year later I left for a mission and was pretty much on my own ever since. I clung to Mormonism for social needs since my entire family rejected me. But I had not been well adapted to the Mormon way of life. When I returned from my mission two thirds of my membership time had been living as a missionary. I was a visa waiter, tossed about to and fro, and endured 30 different companions. Post-mission syndrome hit me hard, mainly because I had no one else for support. The LDS family that took me in when I was baptized had left the state and I was pretty much a strange kid in a strange land, trying to make the religion I had taught for two years, work for me in life. Shortly afterwards I fell into the addictive hobby of apologetics. I bought every book on the subject from FARMS and whatever other amateur apologists wrote a book. Darrick T. Evenson’s Gainsayer book was like my talisman on my mission. I carried it everywhere because I served in Anaheim California, where Darrick served and told of his clashes with the ex-Mormons for Jesus there. I took it with me when I was transferred to the Madrid mission and tried to train all the other missionaries in the defense of the faith. But as I buried myself in the art of apologetics, I began to learn about logic and logical fallacies. Only after a decade or so did I try something most apologists wouldn’t dare: I applied what I learned to critically examine my own presuppositions. Ever since I have been a critic of LDS apologetics because I have been looking at it from outside the box.
But anyway, I suppose the main reason I never really embraced this “us vs. them” mentality, despite the fact I was a TBM, is because I was still learning what it was to be a Mormon. Maybe it was because I resented my family for rejecting me, that I imagined the perfect Mormon Church could never have been that way. We didn’t teach any of this on our missions (though missionaries would always talk about apostates in the worst way and missionaries who were sent home were especially doomed) so I had to learn this stuff gradually through reading and listening. But it was always something that stuck me in my side. It was something that never really meshed well with my understanding of pure Christianity.
So the reason it bothers me is because so many apparently “good” people embrace it as acceptable. It simply isn’t true that this exists in all religions. Mormonism has taken this concept to another level by canonizing it. It is enforced whenever the subject arises in discussion. There seems to be no sign of tolerance and compassion extended towards our former brothers and sisters. None. And it is understandably difficult since it already has a bedrock foundation in LDS scriptures and LDS thought.
The facts are plain. Baptist theology does not have an integrated system of contempt and rejection towards ex-Baptists, simply because they are ex-Baptists. Catholic theology does not have an integrated system of contempt and rejection towards ex-Catholics, simply because they are ex-Catholics. Going down the list of all other Christian sects and the same is true except for perhaps, a few tiny branches. Again, the only faiths that fit this category (immediately coming to mind anyway) are Mormonism, JWs and Islam.
Yes I became a “TBM” I suppose. I converted when I was only 19. I have an interesting conversion story that I used to post online, and I would receive all sorts of emails from struggling members who said my conversion story helped inspire them and strengthened their testimonies. I was rejected by my family when I became Mormon, but not because I became ex-Baptist. A year later I left for a mission and was pretty much on my own ever since. I clung to Mormonism for social needs since my entire family rejected me. But I had not been well adapted to the Mormon way of life. When I returned from my mission two thirds of my membership time had been living as a missionary. I was a visa waiter, tossed about to and fro, and endured 30 different companions. Post-mission syndrome hit me hard, mainly because I had no one else for support. The LDS family that took me in when I was baptized had left the state and I was pretty much a strange kid in a strange land, trying to make the religion I had taught for two years, work for me in life. Shortly afterwards I fell into the addictive hobby of apologetics. I bought every book on the subject from FARMS and whatever other amateur apologists wrote a book. Darrick T. Evenson’s Gainsayer book was like my talisman on my mission. I carried it everywhere because I served in Anaheim California, where Darrick served and told of his clashes with the ex-Mormons for Jesus there. I took it with me when I was transferred to the Madrid mission and tried to train all the other missionaries in the defense of the faith. But as I buried myself in the art of apologetics, I began to learn about logic and logical fallacies. Only after a decade or so did I try something most apologists wouldn’t dare: I applied what I learned to critically examine my own presuppositions. Ever since I have been a critic of LDS apologetics because I have been looking at it from outside the box.
But anyway, I suppose the main reason I never really embraced this “us vs. them” mentality, despite the fact I was a TBM, is because I was still learning what it was to be a Mormon. Maybe it was because I resented my family for rejecting me, that I imagined the perfect Mormon Church could never have been that way. We didn’t teach any of this on our missions (though missionaries would always talk about apostates in the worst way and missionaries who were sent home were especially doomed) so I had to learn this stuff gradually through reading and listening. But it was always something that stuck me in my side. It was something that never really meshed well with my understanding of pure Christianity.
So the reason it bothers me is because so many apparently “good” people embrace it as acceptable. It simply isn’t true that this exists in all religions. Mormonism has taken this concept to another level by canonizing it. It is enforced whenever the subject arises in discussion. There seems to be no sign of tolerance and compassion extended towards our former brothers and sisters. None. And it is understandably difficult since it already has a bedrock foundation in LDS scriptures and LDS thought.
-
_Runtu
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 16721
- Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am
beastie wrote:Anytime you're not a regular reader of a board you are handicapped in assessing it. Sure, if you visit RFM now and then and look for hate, trash, or silly people willing to believe anything as long as it reflects poorly on the LDS church, you'll find plenty to support your view. If I visited MAD and searched for a string of words that indicate LDS believe exmormons are inspired of satan, I'd find plenty to support my view. If I came to this board and did a search for a string of words to support whatever I had decided this board "is", I'd find it.
I'm always surprised when I hear people call RfM a "hate site," and I suspect it's for the reason you suggest. It rings about as true as Juliann's saying that this place is rife with pornography and profanity. Yes, there are some angry souls on RfM, some attention whores (*cough*Steve Benson*cough*), and Dan Vogel and others have been harshly treated (which has, indeed, bewildered me). But for the most part, I see a lot of people on that board who are like me: disillusioned, hurt, and maybe somewhat angry, but simply trying to figure out who they are and what happened to them after they found out that everything they based their lives on was false. Just like this place (and MAD), it's a mixed bag. The problem comes when you take certain posters or threads as representative.
And might I add that I remember Dr. Peterson's pontification on the illegitimacy of leaving the LDS church. It is indeed indicative of an entrenched mindset. Believe it or not, I think there are legitimate reasons for believing in Mormonism; apparently, those on the other side refuse to grant me the same courtesy.
-
_Yoda
I have not read through the entire thread, so I apologize if this issue has already been addressed. I read Beastie's excelent OP, and my comments are based on that.
I have been a member of the LDS Church all of my life, and believe in the fundamental core principles of the gospel. My view, however, on the true gospel of Christ, is that it is not our place, or our right, to judge anyone, particularly to judge people based on their beliefs.
Living to be an example of a good Christian person is, in my opinion, the best way to influence the lives of others for the better.
I have friends and colleagues who have many different beliefs, and faiths. I always have. Do I judge them, or look down on them because they belong to a different Church than I do? Of course not! That would be silly.
Why can't we simply accept people for who they are...love them for who they are, as Jesus did? If their hearts are meant to be touched by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, then they will be. And by living a Christ-like example, it may encourage them to actually ask about the Church....wonder where such principles are taught.
I think that this mindset is the first "baby step" that we, as members can do to facilitate the end to this type of bigotry.
I have been a member of the LDS Church all of my life, and believe in the fundamental core principles of the gospel. My view, however, on the true gospel of Christ, is that it is not our place, or our right, to judge anyone, particularly to judge people based on their beliefs.
Living to be an example of a good Christian person is, in my opinion, the best way to influence the lives of others for the better.
I have friends and colleagues who have many different beliefs, and faiths. I always have. Do I judge them, or look down on them because they belong to a different Church than I do? Of course not! That would be silly.
Why can't we simply accept people for who they are...love them for who they are, as Jesus did? If their hearts are meant to be touched by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, then they will be. And by living a Christ-like example, it may encourage them to actually ask about the Church....wonder where such principles are taught.
I think that this mindset is the first "baby step" that we, as members can do to facilitate the end to this type of bigotry.
-
_Ray A
Kevin,
I'm always interested in reading your accounts, of your conversion, and your subsequent disillusionment with Mormon apologetics. I don't know if you see the irony in that your family rejected you when you became a Mormon, and your subsequent rejection by Mormons, or "TBMs". Would you say this is a human trait also, rejection? The tribal mentality. I know you believe that this rejection of "apostates" is in LDS scripture, and it is. Even with an extended search of LDS scriptures you'll find little mercy offered to apostates, and in fact they are painted as darkened and lost souls. He who turns away from the truth is in a worse state than if he had never believed. Thus says the Book of Mormon.
I'm afraid I have no consolation to offer. I am in the same position. I cannot see the issue being resolved. I'm not convinced that Mormonism is a fraud, far from it. Perhaps someone who does would have great cause to be angry. I can understand that. If a person is 100% convinced that it is a gigantic fraud concocted by a charlatan, naturally they're going to be in a frame of mind which leaves them feeling insulted by the suggestion they are "darkened in mind". I can understand that.
However, the scriptural injunctions are not going to change, and anyone who thinks so is flogging a dead horse. These beliefs also come from the Bible:
Mormonism is a reflection of Christianity. It teaches the same doctrines in regard as to how to treat unbelievers and apostates. Hear Paul:
After reading all that, can you seriously believe that Mormonism is unique in its teachings against apostates and unbelievers?
I'm always interested in reading your accounts, of your conversion, and your subsequent disillusionment with Mormon apologetics. I don't know if you see the irony in that your family rejected you when you became a Mormon, and your subsequent rejection by Mormons, or "TBMs". Would you say this is a human trait also, rejection? The tribal mentality. I know you believe that this rejection of "apostates" is in LDS scripture, and it is. Even with an extended search of LDS scriptures you'll find little mercy offered to apostates, and in fact they are painted as darkened and lost souls. He who turns away from the truth is in a worse state than if he had never believed. Thus says the Book of Mormon.
I'm afraid I have no consolation to offer. I am in the same position. I cannot see the issue being resolved. I'm not convinced that Mormonism is a fraud, far from it. Perhaps someone who does would have great cause to be angry. I can understand that. If a person is 100% convinced that it is a gigantic fraud concocted by a charlatan, naturally they're going to be in a frame of mind which leaves them feeling insulted by the suggestion they are "darkened in mind". I can understand that.
However, the scriptural injunctions are not going to change, and anyone who thinks so is flogging a dead horse. These beliefs also come from the Bible:
45 Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation. Matt.12
14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 2 Cor.
15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. Titus
8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. Rev 21
11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. Eph.5
27 The fear of the LORD prolongeth days: but the years of the wicked shall be shortened. Prov.10
24 He that saith unto the wicked, Thou art righteous; him shall the people curse, nations shall abhor him...Prov.24
Mormonism is a reflection of Christianity. It teaches the same doctrines in regard as to how to treat unbelievers and apostates. Hear Paul:
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. Rom.1
After reading all that, can you seriously believe that Mormonism is unique in its teachings against apostates and unbelievers?
-
_beastie
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 14216
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am
Ray,
You can find Biblical scriptures to support just about whatever you want. But different sects handle this differently, as has been noted above (by personal experience, mine and others). Despite what the Bible may say about how to treat unbelievers, in general, it is only very conservative "one true" type of sects that actually enact this type of behavior.
Mainstream protestants, in general, don't care at all what particular kind of Christian church you attend. They don't care if you leave one sect and join another. You're not attacked or vilified. You're not seen as an "apostate" at all, in fact.
When I was growing up, my family tried several different protestant denominations. As far as I know, not even the conservative believers from the Church of God (in which my mother grew up) viewed any of us as some sort of apostate. When we moved or decided the particular denomination didn't fit for some reason, no one we left behind vilified us or taught myths about "why people leave".
It's just the religions that have some form of "one true" that usually engage in this behavior. in my opinion, that is due to the fact that if human beings are going to claim they have the "one true" whatever, then they must also preach that this "one truism" is accessible to any sincere seeker. (in general, with some exceptions) So there must be a reason why people who once accepted the "one true" now rejects it - and it can't reflect poorly on the "one true". Most protestant churches don't have the "one true" attitude to begin with.
add on - in rereading your response, you probably understand this already. Sorry for repeating myself.
I do disagree with you, however, on whether or not the LDS church could change this. They've changed other teachings that were just as fundamental, in the past. It may be hard to visualize what changes would have to take place for this to happen, but I don't think it is impossible. Unlikely in our lifetimes, but I'd guess likely in the lifetimes of our children.
You can find Biblical scriptures to support just about whatever you want. But different sects handle this differently, as has been noted above (by personal experience, mine and others). Despite what the Bible may say about how to treat unbelievers, in general, it is only very conservative "one true" type of sects that actually enact this type of behavior.
Mainstream protestants, in general, don't care at all what particular kind of Christian church you attend. They don't care if you leave one sect and join another. You're not attacked or vilified. You're not seen as an "apostate" at all, in fact.
When I was growing up, my family tried several different protestant denominations. As far as I know, not even the conservative believers from the Church of God (in which my mother grew up) viewed any of us as some sort of apostate. When we moved or decided the particular denomination didn't fit for some reason, no one we left behind vilified us or taught myths about "why people leave".
It's just the religions that have some form of "one true" that usually engage in this behavior. in my opinion, that is due to the fact that if human beings are going to claim they have the "one true" whatever, then they must also preach that this "one truism" is accessible to any sincere seeker. (in general, with some exceptions) So there must be a reason why people who once accepted the "one true" now rejects it - and it can't reflect poorly on the "one true". Most protestant churches don't have the "one true" attitude to begin with.
add on - in rereading your response, you probably understand this already. Sorry for repeating myself.
I do disagree with you, however, on whether or not the LDS church could change this. They've changed other teachings that were just as fundamental, in the past. It may be hard to visualize what changes would have to take place for this to happen, but I don't think it is impossible. Unlikely in our lifetimes, but I'd guess likely in the lifetimes of our children.
Last edited by Tator on Mon Mar 26, 2007 9:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Penn & Teller
http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
Penn & Teller
http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
-
_Ray A
beastie wrote:Back to the original topic, Ray, you seem to be saying of course Mormons are going to say these sort of things about exmormons, they have to because of their theology. You're probably right. Could I be right as well in saying that, no matter if it isn't going to change, that this is actually a significant part of the problem in continuing relationships between Mormons and exmormons? This belief about apostates that is so inherent to Mormonism that you cannot conceive of Mormonism changing it?
See my post reply to Kevin, beastie. To answer your question, yes it is a significant problem, and there is no immediate solution. I think TBMs could ease up on the personal charges and judgements. Families should not reject their unbelieving sons, daughters, or siblings. However, once again, how someone who loses faith treats the believers should also be considered. If there is scorn, ridicule and hatred directed at them this will often be returned by some. It is a natural human reaction. I believe they have the right to defend themselves, and their church, from smear campaigns and misinformation, and personal attacks. If they chose not to, then they are more in harmony with the scriptures which urge non-retaliation. How many threads here have been devoted to Juliann and DCP? How many have sat by on the sidelines (including myself) and watched all of this unconscionable verbal abuse, distortion, rumour-mongering and innuendo? Yet people expect them to cop all this like a sponge. Their leaders are ridiculed, their church is ridiculed, they are ridiculed. Is the evidence not here? Is this "fun"? "Entertainment"? And when they say they are ridiculed they are dismissed as "weak". Is this any atmosphere for profitable dialogue? Will it change? No. I guess that's just the nature of the "Mormon internet wars". Some unbelievers, however, do know how to carry on dialogue with Mormons, and many of them post on MAD. The "TBMism" does not anger them, they tolerate it, even if they don't like it. And beyond that Mormonism is a very interesting religion to discuss.
-
_beastie
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 14216
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am
Of course exmormons can escalate and aggravate the conflict. Any exmormon who is content to call believers "brainwashed" doesn't have much room for complaint when told they're sinful. It is a cycle, which means both sides feed into the problem. But if we think about how we try to stop other negative cycles, like familial abuse, usually the best hope is training new parents so they don't subject their children during their growing years to abuse. That's the best chance of stopping the cycle. This is why I view it as crucial that, if the cycle is ever to stop, then it must stop at square one, which is during the "growing" period when all are still believers, being exposed to the same teachings. If exmormons could not leave already knowing that those they leave behind are going to view them with suspicion and distrust, then perhaps they would not feel so compelled to justify their loss of faith by constantly pointing to the legitimate reasons for loss of faith. And then LDS wouldn't feel so defensive. Etc and etc.
One thing to consider in regards to the attention that DCP, Juliann, and others often receive (Pahoran, for example) is that this may not solely be due to their positions as apologists, but rather due to their own internet personnae. If they create internet personalities that are rude and dismissive with a very quick trigger finger, then they can expect more negative attention. There are other apologists that are also well known that are not constantly talked about. Doesn't that make you suspect the issue is the personality, not the status as apologist? (I will say DCP may be the one exception to that, apparently due to his position as editor of FARMs and author of reviews, he does seem to personify apologia in general for many exmormons, which I have never particularly related to.) Charity sometimes gets negative press here, and it isn't because she's a believer or apologist. It's because she is rude, while pretending not to be. Human beings sniff out hypocrisy and love to point it out in the "other" tribe, while tending to ignore it in our own tribe. I don't think that is a result of exmormonism in particular, but rather of human nature in general. For example, Kevin Hill used to post quite a bit on Z, but I can't recall any instance in which he was personally attacked by exmormons in the fashion that Juliann and DCP are. (I'm sure he's been vehemently disagreed with, but he doesn't create a personnae that invites personal attacks) While I am aggressive in some of my critique of Brant Gardner's apologia, he isn't generally attacked the way DCP and Juliann are, even when he was a frequent poster. Neither was Ben McGuire. See my point? With the possible exception of DCP as I noted above, I think the TBMs who are regularly castigated attract so much negative attention due to their unpleasant posting styles.
One thing to consider in regards to the attention that DCP, Juliann, and others often receive (Pahoran, for example) is that this may not solely be due to their positions as apologists, but rather due to their own internet personnae. If they create internet personalities that are rude and dismissive with a very quick trigger finger, then they can expect more negative attention. There are other apologists that are also well known that are not constantly talked about. Doesn't that make you suspect the issue is the personality, not the status as apologist? (I will say DCP may be the one exception to that, apparently due to his position as editor of FARMs and author of reviews, he does seem to personify apologia in general for many exmormons, which I have never particularly related to.) Charity sometimes gets negative press here, and it isn't because she's a believer or apologist. It's because she is rude, while pretending not to be. Human beings sniff out hypocrisy and love to point it out in the "other" tribe, while tending to ignore it in our own tribe. I don't think that is a result of exmormonism in particular, but rather of human nature in general. For example, Kevin Hill used to post quite a bit on Z, but I can't recall any instance in which he was personally attacked by exmormons in the fashion that Juliann and DCP are. (I'm sure he's been vehemently disagreed with, but he doesn't create a personnae that invites personal attacks) While I am aggressive in some of my critique of Brant Gardner's apologia, he isn't generally attacked the way DCP and Juliann are, even when he was a frequent poster. Neither was Ben McGuire. See my point? With the possible exception of DCP as I noted above, I think the TBMs who are regularly castigated attract so much negative attention due to their unpleasant posting styles.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Penn & Teller
http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
Penn & Teller
http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
-
_Ray A
beastie wrote:I do disagree with you, however, on whether or not the LDS church could change this. They've changed other teachings that were just as fundamental, in the past. It may be hard to visualize what changes would have to take place for this to happen, but I don't think it is impossible. Unlikely in our lifetimes, but I'd guess likely in the lifetimes of our children.
Change will only come if the Church abandons some its most relevant scriptures. I don't see that happening. Understanding "leave takers", or apostates, is unlikely to be met with much understanding, and perhaps no acceptance, though individual reactions will differ, and there may be more understanding on that level. They have not even addressed the "ex-Mormon problem". They have even made exiting the church easier.
How would you suggest this change come about? Maybe you could outline some concrete measures. I would suggest, as a start, that exmos try to control anger at the church, and the sort of responses we see on RFM. I have no problem accepting that people are hurt and disillusioned, but I'm not convinced that RFM is the venue to heal this hurt. If the Mormon response to RFM is negative, then all dialogue is closed off. It seems that the Mormon Alliance may get more of a hearing:
The purposes of the Mormon Alliance are to identify and document ecclesiastical/spiritual abuse in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS or Mormon Church), to promote healing and closure for its survivors, to build more sensitive leadership, to empower LDS members to participate with more authenticity in Mormonism, and to foster a healthier religious community.
http://mormonalliance.org/
Perhaps an exmo organisation like this may make some ground.
-
_Runtu
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 16721
- Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am
Ray A wrote:Change will only come if the Church abandons some its most relevant scriptures. I don't see that happening. Understanding "leave takers", or apostates, is unlikely to be met with much understanding, and perhaps no acceptance, though individual reactions will differ, and there may be more understanding on that level. They have not even addressed the "ex-Mormon problem". They have even made exiting the church easier.
How would you suggest this change come about? Maybe you could outline some concrete measures. I would suggest, as a start, that exmos try to control anger at the church, and the sort of responses we see on RFM. I have no problem accepting that people are hurt and disillusioned, but I'm not convinced that RFM is the venue to heal this hurt. If the Mormon response to RFM is negative, then all dialogue is closed off. It seems that the Mormon Alliance may get more of a hearing:The purposes of the Mormon Alliance are to identify and document ecclesiastical/spiritual abuse in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS or Mormon Church), to promote healing and closure for its survivors, to build more sensitive leadership, to empower LDS members to participate with more authenticity in Mormonism, and to foster a healthier religious community.
http://mormonalliance.org/
Perhaps an exmo organisation like this may make some ground.
Ray, do you have any idea how ironic your suggestion is? Do you not know who runs the Mormon Alliance and what happened to her?