Why "cowardly anonymity" may indeed be best

[_beastie]

You know what's bizarre about all this? Believers created MAD and invited critics like John to come and post. And then they try to pretend like it's a horrific crime that they do what they were invited to do?

That's the main reason I refuse to participate on MAD. It's like someone inviting you to a party and then harassing you for actually showing up.

[_beastie]

But to all those who are going to church to keep peace in their marriages or families, why would we want to root you out? You're here to be with your families. Families are the basic unit of the church. If you can't believe the gospel as we teach in, at least you do believe that supporting your family members in what helps them is important. Why would we want those kinds of people to not join with us at whatever level they feel comfortable with?

Good for TJane.

[_Scottie]

You know what's bizarre about all this? Believers created MAD and invited critics like John to come and post. And then they try to pretend like it's a horrific crime that they do what they were invited to do?

That's the main reason I refuse to participate on MAD. It's like someone inviting you to a party and then harassing you for actually showing up.

Yeah, I've started a few threads where the first 10 posts are, "Why do you care?? What business is it of yours??"

Well, frankly, I DON'T care. I thought it would be interesting to talk about, and I was invited to participate on a discussion board.

I think it's safe to say that Will is now one of two people that I detest.

[_Moniker]

Unbelievers need to be rooted out? Why?

So what if someone doesn't believe? Who cares what people talk about with their families?

This is sort of creepy in a way that slowly and assuredly makes me lose all equilibrium I just regained by thinking positive LDS thoughts.

Oh dear.

[_beastie]

I have seen some persons attempt to understand or undertake to criticize the gospel or the Church by the method of reason alone, unaccompanied by the use or recognition of revelation. When reason is adopted as the only—or even the principal—method of judging the gospel, the outcome is predetermined. One cannot find God or understand his doctrines and ordinances by closing the door on the means He has prescribed for receiving the truths of his gospel. That is why gospel truths have been corrupted and gospel ordinances have been lost when left to the interpretation and sponsorship of scholars who lack the authority and reject the revelations of God.

from the article Will linked, Alternate Voices

I well remember this article. My father copied it and sent it to me in the mail when I was struggling with doubts. He thought it would "encourage" me to stop reading "bad books" (like Mormon Polygamy). Instead, it helped convince me that the only sane alternative for me was to leave the church altogether. People who find a way to continue participation in the LDS church while not believing it is the "one true church" are simply not welcome.

But aside from that personal memory, I found this statement almost shocking in its admission that if the church is dealt with through reason alone, the "outcome is predetermined". Wow.

[_Jersey Girl]

Our friend Will Schryver just posted this over on the other board:

You see, I know more about you than you think. It's a small world, after all.

I can only assume that since Will and I have a mutual friend (an apostle's son) and that friend knows the name of my bishop, Will is hinting that I'll be the first in his campaign to root apostates out of the church.

He also hinted that coming events will destroy my marriage and family. Yes, disciplinary councils tend to do things like that.

Maybe it is time to resign rather than put my family through that.

I find myself unable to respond to the OP without the use of profanity. Is that so wrong?

[_beastie]

Another irony - internet apologists like to act as if exmormons are paranoid and crazy when they try to protect their identities on the internet.

[_charity]

The person who has decided he has definitely lef the Church, but stays a nominal member and tries to convince others to his point of view should be stripped of the protection of the membership of the Church he now despises.

"Stripped of the protection of the membership of the Church?" What on earth does that mean?

You think that members who continue to attend with their member spouses in order to keep a family together are doing something dishonorable? You'd prefer they move their spouse and children with them out of the church?

This is what I meant. The person who has left the Church, and by that I mean does not believe the doctrines, the leaders, the authority, etc. but his name is still on the membership records, still is given some credibility when he speaks, due to his membership in the Church. The statements he makes mean more to non-LDS just becuse he is a member. He has access to members in terms of attendance at Church and activities where people assume he is an active member in good standing.

It is the subterfuge that is disturbing. A person should be upfront with their beliefs. There is no reason why they can't still attend Church, but it should not be in disguise. If the person no longer believes, be honest about it.

Move their spouse and children out with them? There is no reason why their family relationships can't stay the same (unless there is dysfucntion going on anyway), and wives and children have their own agency. No one should interfere with another's agency.

Go to Church to keep the family together? There is major dysfunction going on it a believing spouse makes that a condition of keeping a marriage together. The believing spouse does not respect the non-believer and is exercising unrighteous dominon. There should be counseling for that if that is the case.

[_beastie]

I've been reading the MAD thread and just got to the part where Will mentions this thread. So now that I know Will is reading, here's what I think of him.

He is a malicious creep who could do permanent damage to families who are barely keeping it together as it is. He seems to take delight in imaging the impact this could have on the "wolf" and doesn't seem to give a darn about the wolf's family.

by the way, charity, going by the number of exmormons I've known over the years who have had to continue going to church to keep their marriage together, I would say one heck of a lot of LDS need counseling.

Part of the irony behind this is that one reason closet nonbelievers feel the need to vent on the internet is due to the fact that they're not "allowed" to be who they truly are in real life, due to the demands of the TBM spouse.

[_beastie]

Did Will actually say this:

"Dude, you're going to lose your family and end up divorced and in hell. Isn't that freaking hilarious?"

The mods finally closed the thread. How in the world did it last as long as it did, when someone was being threatened with "real life" interference? Isn't that a violation of most board regulations?

oh wait, I remember. John is not TBM, that's how it lasted as long as it did.