This could be a really inane question, I'm still asking it

[_beastie]

Jersey Girl -

I think there is some correlation in that it is indisputably taught within the LDS church that those who leave do so due to personal flaws and/or weaknesses, since, obviously, the "one truth" cannot be flawed itself. But aside from that, in real life people often have an interest to be able to maintain and negotiate relationships despite the difference of belief, so some things are better left unsaid and compromises are made. This is not always true, as we see on this thread - some TBM families really do engage in cruel behavior towards the apostate in their ranks. But I suspect families who are totally incapable of coming to some sort of internal compromise and simply avoiding certain touchy subjects in order to be able to continue to be in their loved one's life have underlying problems that may be more associated with the family dynamics than Mormonism, per se.

Mormonism doesn't really teach believers to "shun" apostates, in my opinion, like the JWs do, although some certainly make that choice. When I first left the church, my father's initial reaction was to try and pressure me back, by hinting at withdrawal of familial support (not financial, per se, but emotional and physical support that families often give one another). He wanted my then husband to "use his priesthood" and MAKE me stop reading the things that were making me lose faith. (ironic given that my family well knew, by then, that my then husband was emotionally unstable and emotionally abusive, but apparently my father "forgot" that when it came to his hope that my husband could "make" me behave - also ironic in that my then husband wasn't a particularly strong believer in the first place although he could pretend to be when he felt it necessary) My mother became concerned that his reaction could permanently damage our relationship, and she wouldn't have that. She dragged him to the stake president for counsel, who more or less told him that rather than reacting punitively towards me, he should continue to love and support me just because that was the right thing to do as well as the hope that honey would work more effectively than vinegar in terms of getting me back to church.

I also think that the anonymity of the internet combined with the faceless nature of the exchange encourages people to be more blunt, less polite, and more inflammatory than they would be in "real life". With one exception of a very rude man who was rude to believers as well as apostates, I can't recall being treated by "real life" members the way internet apologists treat doubters/exiters. But I also have to point out I live on the east coast in a community with few Mormons, so perhaps the fact that they don't possess the arrogance of the "majority" induces different behavior than one sees in Utah.

[_Jersey Girl]

Seven

Apologists and internet TBM's are accountable for their poor behavior to doubters. (who are critics by MAD standard) I believe the intent is different between the groups, because an apologist knows better and should be the person of the most understanding and compassion. I haven't figured out exactly what their purpose is, but it appears to be self defense and an unhealthy appetite to destroy opposition. Surprisingly, not a desire to help those who are new to church history or doctrine. I doubt they ever experienced troubled feelings over tough LDS issues or this wouldn't be the attitude there. That is the one question I have for internet TBMs....why the indifference to doubters?

Here you bring up a point that I think was addressed in the "Chapel vs Internet Mormon" essay and if I am mistaken, I hope that someone will correct me. That the internet and other apologists have had to come across and face evidences that pose a threat to their beliefs. How each individual faces that, I have no idea. Perhaps the "unhealthy appetite to destroy opposition" has something to do with forcing those doubting thoughts away from their own minds, projecting them on to the critics as if to make the critics the personification of their own doubts and thus wishing to destroy them?

I would like to see more online apologist actually dig their heels into debate rather than exit the scene.

Jersey Girl

[_Jersey Girl]

Not only do i think it regular within the TBM community. I know the experience first hand.

Most of my extended family and most of my close family, is convinved of all the things that are very steriotypical of apostates. As such an example, the week before i turned 19, i was given the question, "so, are you going on a mission?" my response was not something that could be considered a threat, "I've decided that if if went now, it would only be because you want me to, and not because i was comfortable with my faith enough to." At the time, i was quietly questioning, but not out. With that response came their answer, "then you have 1 week to get out of my house." My birthday was celebrated only as a technicality with nothing but a hastily made birthday cake, for the following day i was on the street. Im not talking figurativly. I mean i was literaly homless on the streets of payson utah. I didn't even own a car at the time. And having moved to utah only 4-5 months prior, no friends i could call for help and all the family in the area was step. (so they where allied with my mothers new husband) All because i had doubts. "Suffer not the thinker to speak"

Im now considered the family drunk, gay, drug addict, porn addict, outcast (lately less so, unsure why atm), ect. It seemed that rather than try to understand my doubts and possibly address them, it would be much more efficient (and easier for that matter) to just rid themselves of the "dissenter in the ranks".

Dear porn infested, drugged out, boozed up, gay, sono hito,

Your post is the kind that sticks a knife right in my gut. If it means anything whatsoever to you, I for one appreciate your presence on this board and am glad that you have joined this community. I wonder if certain people aren't afraid to try to make an effort to try to understand the doubts, thoughts and conflicts of others because it would hit too close to home to do so?

Sincerely,

Jersey Girl

[_Jersey Girl]

Thanks to the stories on RfM, I was fully aware of the gallons of sheep sh!t that would be spewed upon me and my posterity, well before it happened.

Further, it confirmed what had been drilled into me as a member, and how to view and thereby treat the "apostates".

Hey, we can't blame them, they are still under the mind control of the cult.

Porter,

Ironically or not, the stories on RFM were my very first exposure to the wealth of information about Mormonism online. I read all 126 that existed at the time. See? I remember! There can be no question that when some people express doubt or exit the church, there is often a pattern of responses from their loved ones and including friends.

How is it to be someone like you who presumably is looking back on the kind of friend or family member that YOU used to be? When you were TBM would you have doled out the same type of responses to people?

Jersey Girl

[_Gazelam]

The plan of salvation constitutes the purpose of life. Part of that is the continuation of the family. When one member of that group rejects the name of Christ they took upon themselves in the waters of baptism, it tends to cause great concern.

[_wenglund]

Of course there's a correlation. It's the same method of treatment. The only possible difference is one of degree, since it's easier to be nasty to a total stranger via the anonymity of the Internet than it (generally) is to a living, breathing relative.

To understand why TBMs treat ex-Mormons this way, see the following essay:

The Believer and the Apostate

I read the article, but I found it didn't reflect anything close to how I now feel, or have felt, as a TBM towards so-called "apostates", or how I felt towards them when I was engaged in LDS apologetics. And, having interacted closely with leading LDS apologist on nearly a daily bases for nearly a decade, I never got the least hint from them that they felt as described in the article. In fact, I would confidently assert that they wouldn't be able to relate to what was suggested any more than I would.

But, I did find the article an excellent example of stereotyping--so I am not surprised to find some here singing its praises.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_cksalmon]

Of course there's a correlation. It's the same method of treatment. The only possible difference is one of degree, since it's easier to be nasty to a total stranger via the anonymity of the Internet than it (generally) is to a living, breathing relative.

To understand why TBMs treat ex-Mormons this way, see the following essay:

The Believer and the Apostate

I read the article, but I found it didn't reflect anything close to how I now feel, or have felt, as a TBM towards so-called "apostates", or how I felt towards them when I was engaged in LDS apologetics. And, having interacted closely with leading LDS apologist on nearly a daily bases for nearly a decade, I never got the least hint from them that they felt as described in the article. In fact, I would confidently assert that they wouldn't be able to relate to what was suggested any more than I would.

But, I did find the article an excellent example of stereotyping--so I am not surprised to find some here singing its praises.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

As a traditional Christian, I personally found the article hitting a little too close to home at some points. Not necessarily with regard to the treatment of "apostates," but with regard to the abandonment of discursive engagement with controversial and well-supported viewpoints in conflict with one's own. It was instructive.

I do find your own particular response typical of many LDS I've encountered elsewhere. Nothing critical, it seems, is even allowed to appear on the radar screen. Thus: "In fact, I would confidently assert that they wouldn't be able to relate to what was suggested any more than I would."

One finds the same thing with regard to other issues.

Did Joseph Smith ever utter a false prophecy?

Absolutely not. Prove it. It was conditional.

Did Joseph Smith lie about polygamy?

Not in any context-sensitive way, no.

Has LDS doctrine changed?

Utterly not. All changes involve mere opinion and uncanonized utterances.

Were LDS behind the curve with regard to the rights of African-Americans?

No. In fact, the improvement in race relations can be traced, more or less directly, to the lifting of the Ban.

I don't understand the LDS penchant for disavowing all critical observations. Perhaps—no, undoubtedly—some of them are spot on.

CKS

[_harmony]

The plan of salvation constitutes the purpose of life. Part of that is the continuation of the family. When one member of that group rejects the name of Christ they took upon themselves in the waters of baptism, it tends to cause great concern.

"Great concern"? I don't think I'd call it 'great concern'. Fear, yes. Pride, yes. Arrogance, yes. Consternation, yes. I see very little 'concern'. Not saying there is none. I just don't see a great deal of it.

[_Gazelam]

People handle their concern in different ways. Some curl up and cry, other people climb clock towers.

[_Jersey Girl]

I think on both sides there has been far too judgmental of attitudes, based on lousy understanding and direct personal knowledge of people's lives.............. its sad really, to be so misjudged.........

1. Who was misjudged?
2. By whom were they misjudged?
3. Why is it sad?


Jersey Girl