DiscussMormonism.com

Don't get me wrong--I only had so much room in the subject line and did not mean to make that sound as self-absorbed as it does. What I meant was, why does my story generally as opposed to specifically, which I believe now is the story of many, considered so potentially damaging, if true?

It seems that some TBM's (certainly not all), both here and at MA&D, see my story to be a serious problem and go to great effort to try to persuade others that it is fraudulent. I simply do not understand why. Seriously, I do not get it. It is a simple story, really. And I imagine (and see now on the other thread) that there are, have been, and will be, many like me, who are active contributing members who come across historical aspects that cause significant concern, doubt, etc.

In short, why does it get such a strong reaction from the likes of Crock, Pahoran, Selek, Juliann, etc., etc. It has baffled me from day one. I mean, so what if I am some ignorant HP who should have known about polyandry and the papyrus issues, but didn't, and then learned and am concerned? What is the big deal to these folks? Why call me (and the others in my situation) frauds, trolls . . . why go to such effort to try to persuade people that the story is not authentic. What about its potential authenticity is of such significant concern?

mms wrote:Don't get me wrong--I only had so much room in the subject line and did not mean to make that sound as self-absorbed as it does. What I meant was, why does my story generally as opposed to specifically, which I believe now is the story of many, considered so potentially damaging, if true?

It seems that some TBM's (certainly not all), both here and at MA&D, see my story to be a serious problem and go to great effort to try to persuade others that it is fraudulent. I simply do not understand why. Seriously, I do not get it. It is a simple story, really. And I imagine (and see now on the other thread) that there are, have been, and will be, many like me, who are active contributing members who come across historical aspects that cause significant concern, doubt, etc.

In short, why does it get such a strong reaction from the likes of Crock, Pahoran, Selek, Juliann, etc., etc. It has baffled me from day one. I mean, so what if I am some ignorant HP who should have known about polyandry and the papyrus issues, but didn't, and then learned and am concerned? What is the big deal to these folks? Why call me (and the others in my situation) frauds, trolls . . . why go to such effort to try to persuade people that the story is not authentic. What about its potential authenticity is of such significant concern?

Are you sure it is your "story", and not your approach and reactions, that may be causing concern?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

To true-believing Mormons, the church is so obviously and manifestly true that it's simply inconceivable that someone could "know" this and then come to doubt it. When someone stands up and says they've done exactly that, it's really disturbing. Something "impossible" is happening, and in order to mitigate the schocking circumstance, an alternate explanation must be invented. Since it's impossible that someone comes to realize that the church isn't actually true after all, it must be that people are just looking for an excuse to sin, or some other such explanation. They'll say we wanted to leave the church anyway and are just looking for reasons to justify doing so. They'll consider almost any angle to explain our loss of testimony other than the real one, which is that we came to realize that the church isn't actually true, and decided to follow our principles and our minds and turn away from the church.

Your story concerns me not in the least. I applaud you for your efforts to try and get questions answered. It is your style to which I object, but if you pose specific questions about doctrine or history I would be glad to attempt an answer.

rrocket

wenglund wrote: Are you sure it is your "story", and not your approach and reactions, that may be causing concern?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Funny. I just returned from the other thread where I was contributing praise I thought was due to Wade. Regardless, I maintain what I said about you, Wade, even if I think you are seeing only what you want to see with me.

mms

So it is now my "style" and my "reactions", but remember, the focus has been on calling me a fraud and trying to persuade people that I am not what I claim to be. Why the need to persuade that I am a fraud, instead of simply pointing out that you do not like my style or reactions?

(As an aside, feel free to give me a little more detail about my "style" and "reactions" so that I can see from where you are coming.)

MMS: you are special! My observation is that no sooner did you post your thoughts that evil professors and evil doers did in fact persecute you and write all manner of evil about you. And in that you were just a mere anonymous poster..............;)

To better understand, try looking at it from the perspective of another group or religious organization that may have similar dynamics or traditions.

Take the FLDS for example.. what happens when someone leaves? How about the JWs? Scientologists?

It seems a common characteristic for some, that when others leave their religious tradition, they must disparge, condemn, or find some sort of sinful nature to explain the disbelief.

It seems possible that this sort of attitude helps strengthen them, or perhaps helps them to remain secure in their belief.

In other words, if one holds that it is not possible for their belief to be wrong or untrue, then they must come up with a way to justify or rationalize or otherwise make sense of disbelief.

~dancer~

Sethbag wrote:To true-believing Mormons, the church is so obviously and manifestly true that it's simply inconceivable that someone could "know" this and then come to doubt it. When someone stands up and says they've done exactly that, it's really disturbing. Something "impossible" is happening, and in order to mitigate the schocking circumstance, an alternate explanation must be invented. Since it's impossible that someone comes to realize that the church isn't actually true after all, it must be that people are just looking for an excuse to sin, or some other such explanation. They'll say we wanted to leave the church anyway and are just looking for reasons to justify doing so. They'll consider almost any angle to explain our loss of testimony other than the real one, which is that we came to realize that the church isn't actually true, and decided to follow our principles and our minds and turn away from the church.

This is not always the case. In the "Who has been where I am? Questioning. Where did you end up?" thread, I did not approach mms's concerns from that POV at all. How could I? I've been there. I would be dishonest with myself if I was to take the approach that you are suggesting. Now whether or not you could throw me into the TBM pigeon hole is somewhat fuzzy, but nonetheless...your statement is not true as it stands.

I can very readily concede that a person would leave the church or have loss of testimony as a result of exposure to non-standard resources/materials.

Of course, I did give my opinion that they might be jumping the gun.

Regards,
MG

mms wrote:
It seems that some TBM's (certainly not all), both here and at MA&D, see my story to be a serious problem and go to great effort to try to persuade others that it is fraudulent. I simply do not understand why.

I have no qualms about accepting your story as it stands. I've been there too.

Regards,
MG