Has anyone else (critic or believer) found that they just don't have as much emotional investment in debating Mormonism as they used to?
It's just religion.
I'm not much of a debater anyway. I find that I concede way too much, thinking that it will turn out to be a discussion instead of debate. It rarely does. I'm not too fond of debates where each side only presents evidence in their favor in an attempt to stump the "opponent". It seems pointless.
One of the things I have learned from coming to these boards is that I don't want to be a cynic. I have seen cynical behavior from apologists and critcs. The definition of cynic I'm referring to is: "bitterly or sneeringly distrustful, contemptuous, or pessimistic. " I don't want to end up a bitter, disillusioned person no matter what my beliefs. I find I have become a little cynical about things and I want to stop it- it's a waste of life. But on the other hand I have learned that I want to be skeptical about things I believe. "Skeptic does not mean him who doubts, but him who investigates or researches as opposed to him who asserts and thinks that he has found." (Miguel de Unamuno). So to me it's a waste of time to debate Mormonism and then become cynical and rude and bitter but it is not a waste of time if one is a skeptic and learns to treat everyone with kindness and love unfeigned.
Has anyone else (critic or believer) found that they just don't have as much emotional investment in debating Mormonism as they used to?
I do it to keep the tools sharp, influence or innoculate the lurker against antiMormonism (I do occaionally get the positive email and almost never the negative), and for it's entertainment value. I never do it with the idea that I will directly convince the person I am debating with.
And of course I get busy with other things or emotionally drained and I lay off every once in a while.
Runtu wrote: Has anyone else (critic or believer) found that they just don't have as much emotional investment in debating Mormonism as they used to?
It depends upon who it is with. I talk to many people (Mormons and not) on the net and in real life. I don't care where the road leads me as long as I am seeking truth. I think many of the apologists and Mormons on this board and others are completely decided and locked down on any possibility that the church is not what it claims to be so to them I don't understand the interest in discussion.
It is like the aforementioned Pahoran or even Wade England. Why waste the bandwidth. I guess some find them amusing. Would you want to hang with them in real life?
This brings up the "why not move on then" question. The answer is simple to me now. It is for those coming behind us. It is for the investigators and next ex-mormons to see a larger and larger electronic footprint which is easier to find. How many of us would still be members if not for the ones who were willing to talk about it before us?
Runtu wrote: Has anyone else (critic or believer) found that they just don't have as much emotional investment in debating Mormonism as they used to?
It depends upon who it is with. I talk to many people (Mormons and not) on the net and in real life. I don't care where the road leads me as long as I am seeking truth. I think many of the apologists and Mormons on this board and others are completely decided and locked down on any possibility that the church is not what it claims to be so to them I don't understand the interest in discussion.
It is like the aforementioned Pahoran or even Wade England. Why waste the bandwidth. I guess some find them amusing. Would you want to hang with them in real life?
This brings up the "why not move on then" question. The answer is simple to me now. It is for those coming behind us. It is for the investigators and next ex-mormons to see a larger and larger electronic footprint which is easier to find. How many of us would still be members if not for the ones who were willing to talk about it before us?
Chris <><
Hi Chris. Your post really rang true with me. There definitely are some here I would never hang out with in real life. There are a lot of others here I am dying to meet someday. Hell, I would pay for the whole party just to get to know in real life some of the great people here.
Pahoran would not be welcome, and a few others that I won't mention.
I was thinking about your point about those coming behind us the other day when Runtu thought of leaving the board. I really felt kind of sad. He has some great ideas and sees things in a way that I think will help a lot of people through what we know is a very tough period, what with going through all the doubting and questioning. So, although I never agree with bcspace about anything, and find no joy in reading his stuff, I must say I agree with him that there are lurkers out there who need to read this stuff, to help them remain or to help them leave or find some comfort zone in the middle. It is a kind of service.
Just my .02.
I detest my loose style and my libertine sentiments. I thank God, who has removed from my eyes the veil... Adrian Beverland
Runtu wrote:OK, I'm sure that got everyone's attention, but I was thinking this morning that I really don't have very strong feelings anymore towards apologists in general or the ones I know personally. As a believer, I used to cringe at some of the tactics used by apologists, and I've certainly been angered and hurt by some personal nastiness in the past. Someone said, for example, that reading posts from Pahoran is entertaining, and I realized that even his most caustic accusations do little more than make me chuckle to myself.
Maybe it's just that, having stepped back some, I realize that these issues are not so momentous, after all. The church seems in the end rather small and inconsequential in the eternal scheme of things.
Has anyone else (critic or believer) found that they just don't have as much emotional investment in debating Mormonism as they used to?
Pretty much. My anger stopped the day I got my release letter. There are still some painful memories, but I can move on now. I agree with you, the church is just a gnat buzzing through my life at this point.
Each one has to find his peace from within. And peace to be real must be unaffected by outside circumstances. -Ghandi
I don't take debating Mormonism seriously at all anymore. The first couple of years, yes, I did take it seriously and tried to reach some sort of mutual understanding with believers. I have concluded that is, by and large, a pointless exercise. I spent some time this past summer putting together my research into Mesoamerica in regards to the Book of Mormon as a community service, so to speak, but I have no more emotional investment in any of it. I don't care what people believe, although I am glad that some people care enough to continue to offer the "other side".
At this point, my continued participation in Mormon issues is largely due to habit and a source of quasi-entertainment.
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.
I can't tell from the comments that have been made thus far, but do any of you look inwardly at how you discuss/debate Mormonism? And, do you recognize the part you may play in making such ventures futile, if not also consider the possibility that you may be the kinds of people that others may be disinclined to associate with in real life (assuming that your online persona isn't much different from your cyber persona)?
I know that I have, and by acknowledging my part in the futility and certain repelling behaviors, and working to change certain things, it has made a huge difference in the kinds of interactions that I have since been able to have. I can't speak for Don Bradley, but I certainly have very much enjoyed the indepth and lenghty dialogue he and I have had at MAD on the Brotherton case, and I have learned much from it.
wenglund wrote:I can't tell from the comments that have been made thus far, but do any of you look inwardly at how you discuss/debate Mormonism? And, do you recognize the part you may play in making such ventures futile, if not also consider the possibility that you may be the kinds of people that others may be disinclined to associate with in real life (assuming that your online persona isn't much different from your cyber persona)?
Okay, Wade---I'm ready. I am ready to submit to your analysis, so that I can improve my online persona. Please walk me through the steps, and show me what I am doing wrong. I am ready.