DiscussMormonism.com

Reading Bob's blog comments about me, I'm struck that he doesn't think I'm sure I believe the things I post. I could take this personally, but I won't. This isn't the first time I've heard such an opinion expressed about ex-Mormons. This is the same argument as Juliann's periodic "atrocity story" posts: critics (particularly ex-Mormon critics) do not really mean what they say; rather, their statements and arguments are based on tribal acceptance and shared narrative, not, you know, actual thoughts and beliefs.

I wonder what it is about some people that makes them so unwilling to believe that we might actually say what we think. Sometimes I say things before I think them through (pretty regularly, in fact), but I really am not sure what it says about me (or Bob or Juliann) that my posts and those of other ex-Mormons seem so transparently insincere.

To be fair, I've seen exmormons, including myself, suggest the same thing about certain apologists. I've never suggested it about Juliann or Bob, but I have wondered if some of the brighter apologists are bluffing in order to be faith promoting. When I read John Clark and Brant Gardner say things about ancient Mesoamerica and the Book of Mormon that anyone with a base level of understanding of Mesoamerica would recognize as fallacious, I can't help but wonder.

So perhaps it is a similar phenomenon on their part.

Personally, I'm hoping that Bob writes incredibly nasty stuff about me. :)

Maybe I'm just too sensitive, but that's probably the worst thing someone could say to me: that I don't believe what I say.

It is a nasty criticism especially of someone who is as manifestly sincere as runtu and who has NON-ANONYMOUSLY posted very sensitive information about himself both here and on the FAIR/MAD boards: information which makes him very vulnerable to attack. That Bob stoops to it and in language more arch than his usual posts is, well, sickening.

But I guess its ok because we know who he is.

Of course, Bob's attack makes me feel very comfortable with using my "real name" and information---NOT.

John, anyone who knows you can vouch for your sincerity!

You're a fine man. And you believe what you say.

KA

Mostly I’m just posting in this thread in order to be a creepy stalker of Blixa and KimberlyAnn.


Oh, and I think John is sincere in his views (and when he isn’t completely sure of his position, or testing the waters, he tends to use enough qualifiers to make it evident).


*hiding in the internet bushes with a Twix and my smokes*

Doctor Steuss wrote:Oh, and I think John is sincere in his views (and when he isn’t completely sure of his position, or testing the waters, he tends to use enough qualifiers to make it evident).

seconded.

"Oh, Runtu's very popular Ed. The sportos, the motorheads, geeks, sluts, bloods, waistoids, dweebies, dickheads - they all adore him. They think he's a righteous dude."

Runtu wrote:Reading Bob's blog comments about me, I'm struck that he doesn't think I'm sure I believe the things I post.

Yeah, but remember... Bob's a bit of a dumbass.

LifeOnaPlate wrote:

Doctor Steuss wrote:Oh, and I think John is sincere in his views (and when he isn’t completely sure of his position, or testing the waters, he tends to use enough qualifiers to make it evident).

seconded.

Thirded. (can I say that?)