Angry Apologists

[_ozemc]

I think AmazingDisgrace is onto something. The former TBMs among us here know full well what it's like in an environment where unbelief itself is considered tantamount to a moral defect. I think there's something to be said for the notion that to some TBMs, the attitude toward someone who has gone from belief to unbelief is very much like the attitude toward someone they discover has a secret porn stash, or they see them at a party drinking a beer, or smoking a cigarette.

You know, the whole WoW thing is just really strange to me, as a non-mormon.

My wife, though, bless her heart, puts up with my coffee in the morning, and my wine and beer when we go out.

I don't have any porn or smoke cigarettes, though!

(I did smoke from ages 13-26, but that was a l-o-o-o-o-o-ng time ago!)

I once drove into the parking lot for sacrament meeting at the ward she goes to, and I was finishing a cup of coffee. You should have seen the looks I got! It was almost as if the parents had to protect their children from a child molester!

[_Yoda]

I think AmazingDisgrace is onto something. The former TBMs among us here know full well what it's like in an environment where unbelief itself is considered tantamount to a moral defect. I think there's something to be said for the notion that to some TBMs, the attitude toward someone who has gone from belief to unbelief is very much like the attitude toward someone they discover has a secret porn stash, or they see them at a party drinking a beer, or smoking a cigarette.

You know, the whole WoW thing is just really strange to me, as a non-mormon.

My wife, though, bless her heart, puts up with my coffee in the morning, and my wine and beer when we go out.

I don't have any porn or smoke cigarettes, though!

(I did smoke from ages 13-26, but that was a l-o-o-o-o-o-ng time ago!)

I once drove into the parking lot for sacrament meeting at the ward she goes to, and I was finishing a cup of coffee. You should have seen the looks I got! It was almost as if the parents had to protect their children from a child molester!

You'll appreciate this story, then.

;)

My Primary President is pregnant and having a horrible time with nausea. I brought her a box of soda crackers and a bottle of Pepsi(not the caffeine free stuff) into the primary room.

She drank the Pepsi, ate the crackers, and thanked me.

LOL

Edited to add---Most of the time when it was my turn to take kids to seminary, I had a Starbuck's cup in my car.

;)

[_The Nehor]

Angry Apologists come in many flavors.

I think the worst are those that feel the right to be offended on God's behalf. These seem to be rare. I've only met one that I think fits.

Then there are a few who thinks our Gospel and all attached to it MUST be proved right NOW. I'm of the opinion that if God wanted it proved right now wouldn't he supply us with more evidence. Does he really need us to do it for him with our clumsy efforts? FARMS was intended to be a shield not a sword. When God in the Book of Mormon says he will prove to the world the Gospel he says that it will happen 'by the Power of the Lamb' to describe how it happens. He left out the part about how his servants with Internet connections would be instrumental.

For some it is an ego thing where they have to be not only right but acknowledged as right. They want the Church to be true and at the same time not be mocked by the world for their beliefs. The whole God and Mammon thing probably kicks in here.

Then there are probably a few who worry it's all a lie and frantically try to prove it right so that their doubts can cease. They are probably the most pathetic and really need to pray more, not read more obscure books. You can't preach the word until you obtain it.

[_Runtu]

Angry Apologists come in many flavors.

I think the worst are those that feel the right to be offended on God's behalf. These seem to be rare. I've only met one that I think fits.

Kind of like a persecution complex? I've seen a lot of that.

Then there are a few who thinks our Gospel and all attached to it MUST be proved right NOW. I'm of the opinion that if God wanted it proved right now wouldn't he supply us with more evidence. Does he really need us to do it for him with our clumsy efforts? FARMS was intended to be a shield not a sword. When God in the Book of Mormon says he will prove to the world the Gospel he says that it will happen 'by the Power of the Lamb' to describe how it happens. He left out the part about how his servants with Internet connections would be instrumental.

I think some people really do think they are providing a valuable defense of the church. That doesn't really explain why some of them are so angry, though.

For some it is an ego thing where they have to be not only right but acknowledged as right. They want the Church to be true and at the same time not be mocked by the world for their beliefs. The whole God and Mammon thing probably kicks in here.

I think it's more a reflection that people like to argue and like to win arguments.

Then there are probably a few who worry it's all a lie and frantically try to prove it right so that their doubts can cease. They are probably the most pathetic and really need to pray more, not read more obscure books. You can't preach the word until you obtain it.

I suspect there are more than a few of these. Spiritual insecurity tends to breed contention.

[_The Nehor]

Angry Apologists come in many flavors.

I think the worst are those that feel the right to be offended on God's behalf. These seem to be rare. I've only met one that I think fits.

Kind of like a persecution complex? I've seen a lot of that.

Then there are a few who thinks our Gospel and all attached to it MUST be proved right NOW. I'm of the opinion that if God wanted it proved right now wouldn't he supply us with more evidence. Does he really need us to do it for him with our clumsy efforts? FARMS was intended to be a shield not a sword. When God in the Book of Mormon says he will prove to the world the Gospel he says that it will happen 'by the Power of the Lamb' to describe how it happens. He left out the part about how his servants with Internet connections would be instrumental.

I think some people really do think they are providing a valuable defense of the church. That doesn't really explain why some of them are so angry, though.

For some it is an ego thing where they have to be not only right but acknowledged as right. They want the Church to be true and at the same time not be mocked by the world for their beliefs. The whole God and Mammon thing probably kicks in here.

I think it's more a reflection that people like to argue and like to win arguments.

Then there are probably a few who worry it's all a lie and frantically try to prove it right so that their doubts can cease. They are probably the most pathetic and really need to pray more, not read more obscure books. You can't preach the word until you obtain it.

I suspect there are more than a few of these. Spiritual insecurity tends to breed contention.

Well, I only went over the angry ones.

The Persecution Complex mostly stems from a misunderstanding of scripture. Rejection of the Church and the Gospel is a rejection of God and not of us. Our scripture makes that clear. There are of course exceptions with people who are genuinely persecuted. Even then it's often just because of religious association.

Some do think they're serving God. The ones that are angry are failing unless they really think insults and snide remarks are the best method to convince people of the truth....in which case they need some time to get to know God better. That whole 'obtaining his word before you preach his word' thing.

[_karl61]

Mormon apologetics: so much comes to mind and I've only been reading for six months. The one thing that I don't understand is how and why the church disfellowships and excommunicates people. If anyone is a prodigal son it is the Church. Just look at the whole history of 1820 to 1900. If anyone was angry in that time period it was the citizens of the United States on how to deal with people that threatened the way they live and the government that they loved - Members of the Church, murdered, burned, plundered, created heavenly ways to sleep around; all in the name of God; all Melchizedec Priesthood holders. The more the Church tries to disstance themselves from that history the more visable it will appear to those investigating the Church. The Church needs to address it, not members through apologetics.

[_Gadianton]

here's my thought. some people have angry tendencies. I kinda know - even if most of the time I'm actually happy. But some people, just as a fact of biology I suppose, are disposed to being angry. Now, what if you're an angry person who grows up ducking bullets in some dark corner of LA? it's almost a god-send. You go on to be a fighter and a gangster. But what if you're an angry person who grows up in a church, one that enforces sexual repression, impunes guilt constantly, and teaches you to love your enemies - more or less? What do you do?

There is no escape, there is no outlet. With an exception. Most Christians will go on and on about the love and patience of Jesus. He was so good and kind. There was that incident in the temple, but boy, those guys really deserved it, and he just did what he had to do. But that angry, repressed Mormon stumbles upon the Jesus in the temple story and a whole new world opens up. Here it is. the opportunity to be Christlike, AND find the much needed outlet for rage. The anger can flow and flow, as long as they are chasing the pharasies out of the temple - or the anti-Mormons off of FAIR/MAD. And God will bless them for it. Well, that is unless that little verse is a mistranslation -- something apologists are good at demonstrating -- the one about the Lord forgiving whom he will, but us forgiving everyone.

[_The Nehor]

Mormon apologetics: so much comes to mind and I've only been reading for six months. The one thing that I don't understand is how and why the church disfellowships and excommunicates people. If anyone is a prodigal son it is the Church. Just look at the whole history of 1820 to 1900. If anyone was angry in that time period it was the citizens of the United States on how to deal with people that threatened the way they live and the government that they loved - Members of the Church, murdered, burned, plundered, created heavenly ways to sleep around; all in the name of God; all Melchizedec Priesthood holders. The more the Church tries to disstance themselves from that history the more visable it will appear to those investigating the Church. The Church needs to address it, not members through apologetics.

The Mormons were a threat to the US? We were in constant retreat. We built a city in the middle of the desert and had virtually no interaction with the rest of the nation and still they felt they had to send an army after us.

[_karl61]

Mormon apologetics: so much comes to mind and I've only been reading for six months. The one thing that I don't understand is how and why the church disfellowships and excommunicates people. If anyone is a prodigal son it is the Church. Just look at the whole history of 1820 to 1900. If anyone was angry in that time period it was the citizens of the United States on how to deal with people that threatened the way they live and the government that they loved - Members of the Church, murdered, burned, plundered, created heavenly ways to sleep around; all in the name of God; all Melchizedec Priesthood holders. The more the Church tries to disstance themselves from that history the more visable it will appear to those investigating the Church. The Church needs to address it, not members through apologetics.

The Mormons were a threat to the US? We were in constant retreat. We built a city in the middle of the desert and had virtually no interaction with the rest of the nation and still they felt they had to send an army after us.

They sent an Army to show force and to show that the Church and it's angels would lose a shooting war, but better than guns were bills that were passed to protect the innocent people. In Utah the laws were written by those in power and laws were written to keep them in power. There was little to no public education and the status quo would have kept it that way. One of the reason the Government took the Church property was so it could create public schools, which the leaders of the Church were against. It was Church leaders that had private teachers for their children which were paid for by the tithes of the poor converts who were immigrants. (See The Mormon Question by Sarah Barrianger Gordon for more details)

[_moksha]

Continuing on from that discussion with Will Schryver on Liz's thread, there seem to be both angry critics and angry apologists. Could it not be that they brought their life coping skills with them to these boards, rather than being shaped by the issues on these boards?

Some people like Runtu or Koakaipo just seem like gentle souls, while others like (I really don't have to name names - you can all remember them) seem hostile from the word go and any past restraint was probably borne out of the timidity of being new or else out of character.