Ex-Mormons Shut up and Sing

[_beastie]

Yes, it is getting embarrassing. If what you say is correct, then not only did SB & Beastie poorly communicate this sentiment, but in the process of feeling sorry for yourselves about being invalidated, you all are ironically invalidating Juliann et al.'s experiences and feelings.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Frankly, I find it impossible to believe that any adult of normal intelligence would not have comprehended this simple point. I don't know what game you are playing, or if your disability is worse than you imagine, but you look ridiculous.

Aside from what appears to be to be nothing more than a willful choice to not comprehend, you are still way off base. I can't speak for SB, but I don't feel sorry for myself at all. I'm not invalidated. The fact that the LDS hierarchy and obedient followers like Juliann attempt to invalidate my experiences is absolutely to be expected. The LDS church is an authoritarian institution based on the notion that it is possible for human beings to attain such reliable information from God that it is feasible to make authoritative statements, like "the LDS church is the only church with the true authority of JC to perform saving ordinances in his name", or "If you don't have a sealing performed for you by one with true authority, you will not have familial relationships in the next life", etc etc. Therefore, when people who are very familiar with these claims - like former members - do not believe in the claim, it is necessary to claim that the problem is with the exbelievers, not the institution itself. It's an old and predictable story. Nothing new. Nothing surprising. The fact that my former church engages in this behavior has no emotional impact on me whatsoever, and my stating it here is simply stating a fact, not "feeling sorry" for myself. You, like Juliann, project feelings onto people when perhaps you ought to wonder why that desire for projection is there in the first place.


But tell me, what experiences and feelings of Juliann's are we invalidating?

[_Runtu]

Yes, it is getting embarrassing. If what you say is correct, then not only did SB & Beastie poorly communicate this sentiment, but in the process of feeling sorry for yourselves about being invalidated, you all are ironically invalidating Juliann et al.'s experiences and feelings.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I personally don't care if you or Juliann or anyone else respects my feelings. And suggesting that we're just a bunch of whiners who feel sorry for ourselves is really pathetic. We are not talking about Juliann's feelings and experiences and never have been. We're talking about the misuse of scholarly research to ridicule people. Given that you think it's just fine to mock people for actually having feelings, I think I'm done talking with you.

[_wenglund]

Yes, it is getting embarrassing. If what you say is correct, then not only did SB & Beastie poorly communicate this sentiment, but in the process of feeling sorry for yourselves about being invalidated, you all are ironically invalidating Juliann et al.'s experiences and feelings.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Frankly, I find it impossible to believe that any adult of normal intelligence would not have comprehended this simple point. I don't know what game you are playing, or if your disability is worse than you imagine, but you look ridiculous.

Aside from what appears to be to be nothing more than a willful choice to not comprehend, you are still way off base. I can't speak for SB, but I don't feel sorry for myself at all. I'm not invalidated.

Then what Runtu said does not apply to you, and is not a correct interpretation of what you said. I thought that possible, and that is why I used the "if" qualifier. So, apparently your frankness applies to Runtu instead of me. What is his excuse?

Also, in your typical unwittingly contradictory style, you seem to be suggesting that he did comprehend you correctly. What is your excuse for this double-speak?

The fact that the LDS hierarchy and obedient followers like Juliann attempt to invalidate my experiences is absolutely to be expected. The LDS church is an authoritarian institution based on the notion that it is possible for human beings to attain such reliable information from God that it is feasible to make authoritative statements, like "the LDS church is the only church with the true authority of JC to perform saving ordinances in his name", or "If you don't have a sealing performed for you by one with true authority, you will not have familial relationships in the next life", etc etc. Therefore, when people who are very familiar with these claims - like former members - do not believe in the claim, it is necessary to claim that the problem is with the exbelievers, not the institution itself. It's an old and predictable story. Nothing new. Nothing surprising. The fact that my former church engages in this behavior has no emotional impact on me whatsoever, and my stating it here is simply stating a fact, not "feeling sorry" for myself. You, like Juliann, project feelings onto people when perhaps you ought to wonder why that desire for projection is there in the first place.


But tell me, what experiences and feelings of Juliann's are we invalidating?

I am suprised that you would ask. An adult of average intelligence would have easily comprehended and known what I was referring to--particularly given that my statement was obviously made in direct response to what Runtu had said about Juliann. What is your excuse?

Anyway, for your benefit, let me make it all the more obvious. Depending upon whether you included yourself in the "we" (this is conditioned upon which side of your mouth you finally choose to talk out of), you/they are invalidating (in the same way that you/they claim Juliann et al. are invalidating "bitter 'career' apostates") Juliann's experiences and feelings regarding "bitter 'career' apostates". In other words, you/they want Juliann to "shut up and sing" about bitter carrer apostates, just as you suppose she wants the bitter career apostates to "shut up and sing".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Yes, it is getting embarrassing. If what you say is correct, then not only did SB & Beastie poorly communicate this sentiment, but in the process of feeling sorry for yourselves about being invalidated, you all are ironically invalidating Juliann et al.'s experiences and feelings.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I personally don't care if you or Juliann or anyone else respects my feelings. And suggesting that we're just a bunch of whiners who feel sorry for ourselves is really pathetic. We are not talking about Juliann's feelings and experiences and never have been. We're talking about the misuse of scholarly research to ridicule people. Given that you think it's just fine to mock people for actually having feelings, I think I'm done talking with you.

You are welcome to go off and pout and feel sorry for yourself. That is understandable. You seem rather liberal with criticism of Juliann, but shrink and cry out when your same spotlight it shown back on you. Such is the nature of certain ex-Mormons. By so doing, though, you inadvertantly confirm, in a way, Juliann's scholarship.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Nomomo]

By so doing, though, you inadvertantly confirm, in a way, Juliann's scholarship.

Oh -- Dear --- Lord! In what way?

(Why do I read these stupid posts? I'm ashamed for Wade with these tactics.)

[_desert_vulture]

The church will actively excommunicate members who have lost faith who are vocal in their criticism of the church. They will not actively excommunicate members who have also lost faith but keep quiet about it, except perhaps to their bishop or family. Do you actually dispute this?

beastie, does the church excommunicate those who are vocal in their criticism, on discussion boards?

[_beastie]

Wade,

Once again you betray that you have never understood the basic point of either Juliann's theory OR the criticism launched against it. As runtu already tried to explain, no one is criticizing Juliann for her feelings or experiences. She is being criticized for misusing sources.

Aside from that, your argument is just a variation of "you can't criticize a bigot without being bigot yourself because you attack the bigot" nonsense.

Vulture,

I don't know the answer to your question, other than anecdotal evidence. My boyfriend has been inactive in the church for decades. Years after he fell into inactivity for personal reasons (while remaining a believer - he had been through a horrific divorce, and the culture of the LDS church was too emotionally painful for him to endure, but he still believed the church was true) he lost his faith altogether. In the meantime, he had moved from Utah to the state of Washington. He had never been active in Washington. Every now and then a hometeacher would wander by, but nothing consistent or targeted. He was just one of the mass inactives. About a year after losing faith, however, he created a personal website about his loss of faith (called, for real old timers, "And Then I Cried"). Someone (can't quite remember who at this point, it was no one he knew, but I can't remember where this person was on the church hierarchy, I'll try to remember to ask him to refresh my memory) reported him to his stake president. His stake president told him to take down the website or he would be excommunicated. My boyfriend didn't care about being ex'd, but his family was in a great deal of emotional pain over his loss of faith, so he took it down to spare their feelings.

Other people on internet boards have claimed that their real life identities were somehow tracked down and reported to the local authorities. I can't recall what the result of that reporting was.

I really don't know if the church has an official policy on this, or like in many other matters, it largely depends on who your bishop happens to be.

[_Runtu]

Yes, it is getting embarrassing. If what you say is correct, then not only did SB & Beastie poorly communicate this sentiment, but in the process of feeling sorry for yourselves about being invalidated, you all are ironically invalidating Juliann et al.'s experiences and feelings.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I personally don't care if you or Juliann or anyone else respects my feelings. And suggesting that we're just a bunch of whiners who feel sorry for ourselves is really pathetic. We are not talking about Juliann's feelings and experiences and never have been. We're talking about the misuse of scholarly research to ridicule people. Given that you think it's just fine to mock people for actually having feelings, I think I'm done talking with you.

You are welcome to go off and pout and feel sorry for yourself. That is understandable. You seem rather liberal with criticism of Juliann, but shrink and cry out when your same spotlight it shown back on you. Such is the nature of certain ex-Mormons. By so doing, though, you inadvertantly confirm, in a way, Juliann's scholarship.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'm not criticizing Juliann in any personal way, Wade. I'm criticizing her misuse of research. That you want to turn it into an opportunity to make fun of people speaks much more about you than it does about Juliann. I've said before that I like Juliann, and I have had some very good conversations with her. This isn't about her and her personality and feelings.

[_wenglund]

Wade,

Once again you betray that you have never understood the basic point of either Juliann's theory OR the criticism launched against it. As runtu already tried to explain, no one is criticizing Juliann for her feelings or experiences. She is being criticized for misusing sources.

You are the last person I would consider as being in a credible position to judge this.

Aside from that, your argument is just a variation of "you can't criticize a bigot without being bigot yourself because you attack the bigot" nonsense.

No. Those are words you are putting into my mouth. Enjoy dancing with your straw man. At all cost, don't engage what I actually say and mean.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Yes, it is getting embarrassing. If what you say is correct, then not only did SB & Beastie poorly communicate this sentiment, but in the process of feeling sorry for yourselves about being invalidated, you all are ironically invalidating Juliann et al.'s experiences and feelings.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I personally don't care if you or Juliann or anyone else respects my feelings. And suggesting that we're just a bunch of whiners who feel sorry for ourselves is really pathetic. We are not talking about Juliann's feelings and experiences and never have been. We're talking about the misuse of scholarly research to ridicule people. Given that you think it's just fine to mock people for actually having feelings, I think I'm done talking with you.

You are welcome to go off and pout and feel sorry for yourself. That is understandable. You seem rather liberal with criticism of Juliann, but shrink and cry out when your same spotlight it shown back on you. Such is the nature of certain ex-Mormons. By so doing, though, you inadvertantly confirm, in a way, Juliann's scholarship.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'm not criticizing Juliann in any personal way, Wade. I'm criticizing her misuse of research. That you want to turn it into an opportunity to make fun of people speaks much more about you than it does about Juliann. I've said before that I like Juliann, and I have had some very good conversations with her. This isn't about her and her personality and feelings.

Let's get down to a specific example so I can show you what I mean. Quote me where you think Juliann has invalidated the "experiences and feelings of lots of exMormons because they won't shut up", and I will attempt to show how you may be doing the same with her.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-