RfM--why it's a useless site. (Simon will love this!)

[_why me]

You are commenting from the perspective of one who never had to do the "hard yards", and yet, after several years on these forums, you still have no reticence about mounting a podium and lecturing others about what they should do in a position you have never been in.

This is not true ray. We need to remember that I was married to a dedicated church member and I am sure that my inactivity was not helpful for my marriage which did eventually end in divorce. And so, I use myself as an example of how to be. I have no bitterness. No hatred. I have chosen to live the life which I live. I can not blame anyone or anything but myself if blame is needed. Who should I blame if I refuse to follow the rules? The club? No, of course not.

[_why me]

Have you ever been to an LDS ring ceremony? Because what DarkHelmet has described is basically exactly what I've seen at EVERY ring ceremony I've been to. Bishops absolutely do use the ceremony as a platform to discuss the importance of the temple sealing and gospel. When we were meeting with the stake president before getting married, we were specifically instructed that while a ring ceremony would be appropriate, we needed to take care that it was simple enough that it did not detract from the primary importance of the temple ordinance or give the impression that it was a wedding ceremony.

Let me try this again: the ring ceremony comes after the temple ceremony. Find a nice park to have the ring ceremony and take it from there. One can even hire someone who can perform such ceremonies. It makes no difference because the temple wedding has already taken place. No bishop involvement at all. Or one can talk to the bishop about it beforehand. Since the people have already been married the ring ceremony can take place in the elvis presley chapel in a pink caddy.

[_RayAgostini]

This is not true ray. We need to remember that I was married to a dedicated church member and I am sure that my inactivity was not helpful for my marriage which did eventually end in divorce. And so, I use myself as an example of how to be. I have no bitterness. No hatred. I have chosen to live the life which I live. I can not blame anyone or anything but myself if blame is needed. Who should I blame if I refuse to follow the rules? The club? No, of course not.

That still doesn't address my point, namely that you (not your ex-wife) never committed yourself to the Church, and therefore you can't understand what it's like to become disillusioned. You can't use yourself as "an example of how to be", because you don't know what it's like to be a "true believer" active in the Church and fulfilling all the requirements of said institution. You never had to "escape" from anything, because you never committed yourself to anything in the first place.

You obviously love your freedom from the Church, or you'd be active, and for the sake of God deprive yourself of "personal desires" and wholly commit to the Church, without any reservation. You've never done this. You've never had to do the "hard yards", at your own choice, and have remained aloof from activity in the Church. When you can fully and entirely commit yourself to full activity in the Church, then your lectures to others might gain some momentum.

You are lecturing people and asking them to do things you've never done, because you've never been in their position, and maybe that's to earn a few "brownie points", in your view, to make up for what you lack in concrete action. Maybe you think that by posting here against "the gainsayers", God will excuse your sins and personal weaknesses. That seems to me, to be at least part of your motivation. It's easier to stay at home and press a keyboard "in defense of the faith", than to show that defense by actually living what you claim to believe.

[_why me]

I gather that you have had a very different experience than those who seek support at RfM. You don't seem to relate to or understand that crowd. That being the case, you probably shouldn't jump to conclusions about their motives or experiences based on what you would think, feel, or do if you were in their shoes. So RfM doesn't meet your needs or suit your style. That's fine. It does fill needs for other people who feel deeply, have experienced great loss as a result of their disaffection, and have had to deal with difficulties that don't seem to resonate with you.

My first experience on forums was with the postmormon site when they just began to be online. I liked their webpage that stated that they valued the positive in their experience of the LDS church but chose to move on. When I went on that forum, I discovered nothing but negativism. I countered their negativism with some positives as stated on their webpage. And eventually I was called a liar, a fake, a fraud etc. And since I was inactive I could not understand their feelings, they claimed. Not a good experience. I then discovered FAIR and the rest is history.

So my experience of such boards is that they are very sectarian and if you don't fit the mold, the person is gone. It has nothing to do with recovery at all since all must fit the contant negativity. The same was also on NOM.

[_why me]

You are lecturing people and asking them to do things you've never done, because you've never been in their position, and maybe that's to earn a few "brownie points", in your view, to make up for what you lack in concrete action. Maybe you think that by posting here against "the gainsayers", God will excuse your sins and personal weaknesses.

I will comment on the other parts of your post later but for now I will comment on this point. Why am I here? To counter the negativity about the LDS church. I do not see the church as evil with people out to brainwash the world. I just see a group of people, including the leaders as human beings who are just trying to do good for themselves and for their families with an eye toward eternal life. Basically I see Mormons as good people and good neighbors. Now if the church was ever proven false, fine. I would feel sorry for the active members. Their world would be devastated. But then, if god would be proven false, I would feel sorrow for all the believers because their worldview would be shattered too.

Ray, I have no delusion where I am heading if the LDS church is true regardless of my thousands of posts defending the LDS church.

[_beastie]

I will comment on the other parts of your post later but for now I will comment on this point. Why am I here? To counter the negativity about the LDS church. I do not see the church as evil with people out to brainwash the world. I just see a group of people, including the leaders as human beings who are just trying to do good for themselves and for their families with an eye toward eternal life. Basically I see Mormons as good people and good neighbors. Now if the church was ever proven false, fine. I would feel sorry for the active members. Their world would be devastated. But then, if god would be proven false, I would feel sorrow for all the believers because their worldview would be shattered too.

Ray, I have no delusion where I am heading if the LDS church is true regardless of my thousands of posts defending the LDS church.

You increase negativity towards the church.

[_angsty]

I think it's hilarious that you are basically whining about other people whining.

I am not whining but venting. :=) I am just stating my opinion as I see it on RFM. If I stated a positive about the LDS church on that forum, I would be shown the door after being reported and disagreeing with the new worldview of posters would get me the door fast.

I don't find nothing wrong with venting. It is good to let off the steam. But stream can not become bitter. And this happens quite often on such boards.

Oh. So, when you state your opinion as you see it, it's venting and letting off steam, but when people you disagree with at RfM state their opinions, it's "whinning". Hmmm.

The reason you weren't made welcome at RfM is because you did not understand the purpose of the board, read the board rules, or relate to those posters' experiences well enough to know that what you were posting was inappropriate.

[_angsty]

Have you ever been to an LDS ring ceremony? Because what DarkHelmet has described is basically exactly what I've seen at EVERY ring ceremony I've been to. Bishops absolutely do use the ceremony as a platform to discuss the importance of the temple sealing and gospel. When we were meeting with the stake president before getting married, we were specifically instructed that while a ring ceremony would be appropriate, we needed to take care that it was simple enough that it did not detract from the primary importance of the temple ordinance or give the impression that it was a wedding ceremony.

Let me try this again: the ring ceremony comes after the temple ceremony. Find a nice park to have the ring ceremony and take it from there. One can even hire someone who can perform such ceremonies. It makes no difference because the temple wedding has already taken place. No bishop involvement at all. Or one can talk to the bishop about it beforehand. Since the people have already been married the ring ceremony can take place in the elvis presley chapel in a pink caddy.

Let me try this again: There are church-dictated guidelines for ring ceremonies that prevent your idealized scenario. A person is not "hired" to perform the ceremony. A priesthood authority conducts it, and it involves explaining the importance of the temple sealing that all the unworthies missed. The church has instructed that ring ceremonies should be modest, church-oriented, and not detract from the significance of the sealing ordinance in any way. Your Vegas-chapel scenario is the ANTITHESIS of what the church has instructed that a ring ceremony should be. For a faithful, believing member, your version of what a ring ceremony should be, is completely unrealistic.

[_Chap]

Have you ever been to an LDS ring ceremony? Because what DarkHelmet has described is basically exactly what I've seen at EVERY ring ceremony I've been to. Bishops absolutely do use the ceremony as a platform to discuss the importance of the temple sealing and gospel. When we were meeting with the stake president before getting married, we were specifically instructed that while a ring ceremony would be appropriate, we needed to take care that it was simple enough that it did not detract from the primary importance of the temple ordinance or give the impression that it was a wedding ceremony.

Let me try this again: the ring ceremony comes after the temple ceremony. Find a nice park to have the ring ceremony and take it from there. One can even hire someone who can perform such ceremonies. It makes no difference because the temple wedding has already taken place. No bishop involvement at all. Or one can talk to the bishop about it beforehand. Since the people have already been married the ring ceremony can take place in the elvis presley chapel in a pink caddy.

Let me try this again: There are church-dictated guidelines for ring ceremonies that prevent your idealized scenario. A person is not "hired" to perform the ceremony. A priesthood authority conducts it, and it involves explaining the importance of the temple sealing that all the unworthies missed. The church has instructed that ring ceremonies should be modest, church-oriented, and not detract from the significance of the sealing ordinance in any way. Your Vegas-chapel scenario is the ANTITHESIS of what the church has instructed that a ring ceremony should be. For a faithful, believing member, your version of what a ring ceremony should be, is completely unrealistic.

Isn't it simply amazing how very little whyme actually knows about the nature and practice of the church about which he posts so much? Even I could have told him how completely out of line with church directives his fantasies were.

I prescribe a lot of reading of RfM if whyme wants to learn how the CoJCoLDS operates at the 'sharp end' of its relations with the LDS unworthy, the apostate and the nevermo. The stories aren't nice, and they mostly don't have happy endings, and unsurprisingly people post about their anger and sense of insult and rejection. And you know what? That aspect of it is very often the simple consequence of the way the CoJCoLDS deliberately chooses to handle these things.

[_angsty]

I gather that you have had a very different experience than those who seek support at RfM. You don't seem to relate to or understand that crowd. That being the case, you probably shouldn't jump to conclusions about their motives or experiences based on what you would think, feel, or do if you were in their shoes. So RfM doesn't meet your needs or suit your style. That's fine. It does fill needs for other people who feel deeply, have experienced great loss as a result of their disaffection, and have had to deal with difficulties that don't seem to resonate with you.

My first experience on forums was with the postmormon site when they just began to be online. I liked their webpage that stated that they valued the positive in their experience of the LDS church but chose to move on. When I went on that forum, I discovered nothing but negativism. I countered their negativism with some positives as stated on their webpage. And eventually I was called a liar, a fake, a fraud etc. And since I was inactive I could not understand their feelings, they claimed. Not a good experience. I then discovered FAIR and the rest is history.

So my experience of such boards is that they are very sectarian and if you don't fit the mold, the person is gone. It has nothing to do with recovery at all since all must fit the contant negativity. The same was also on NOM.

I was speaking of your experience as a Mormon-- not your experience as a participant on internet forums. Sorry, I didn't realize there was an ambiguity there.

The reason you haven't had a great welcome at those boards is that in light of your unique experience as a lapsed non-committed Mormon, you can't relate to those posters well enough to be helpful. They aren't just lapsed, uncommitted Mormons. They are former believing Mormons who had the rug of their worldview yanked out from under them. As someone who doesn't participate fully in the church as a believing member, you don't understand what it is to actually be a believing member (seeing your ex-wife operate, hardly qualifies you. Since she is your ex-wife, I think it's safe for us to assume that there wasn't exactly perfect understanding in your relationship). Not having that experience prevents you from understanding the process of apostasy entirely.

From the way you talk about Mormonism, it's very clear that you do not grasp how church culture and authority works for actual believing members. You've illustrated that very well here with the way you have advocated ring ceremonies as a way to appease non-member or "unworthy" family and friends who aren't able to attend the real wedding. You don't understand either side of the issue. You don't understand the church's guidelines on ring ceremonies. You don't understand the mindset that motivates believing members to abide by those guidelines. You don't understand how non-members and "unworthy" former members feel at being excluded from weddings, or why.

A person with that little grasp of the issues at hand, is not someone who is going to say helpful things on a support board for people involved. That should not be a surprise.