DiscussMormonism.com

I was just musing on something that Nehor mentioned on another thread. He made a reference to "this little war".

When I asked him what war he was referring to, he blithely said, "the war between apologists and critics."

Is that how many of you really feel? Do you feel that we are at war with one another? Is that where the vehemence and the disdain comes from on both sides at times?

Is this why the MAD apologists become so "up in arms" if they suspect a troll?

When opposing groups make absolutist claims ("The Church is True", "The Church is False") odds are that civility will eventually fly out the window and middle ground will disappear. Not that it would lead to violence, but compromise becomes difficult when two opposing sides argue for such absolute positions.

Bond...James Bond wrote:When opposing groups make absolutist claims ("The Church is True", "The Church is False") odds are that civility will eventually fly out the window and middle ground will disappear. Not that it would lead to violence, but compromise becomes difficult when two opposing sides argue for such absolute positions.

I think this pretty much hits the nail on the head. But many would-be moderates, on both "sides", are sometimes forced to retreat more to one side. In real life, I bet atheists and Mormons have no trouble getting along, or at least tolerating one another peacefully. Where inactive or ex-Mormons have had bad experiences of rejection at the hands of family or friends, the anger is understandable. There are no easy solutions to this. Nevermos can possibly bring some perspective. In a sense the exmo anger is like a cantankerous divorce, and though it may have happened years ago, and in real life now has little meaning, on an Internet forum the anger is revived. One thing I've learned in real life - when you laugh, the world laughs with you, when you cry, you cry alone. People find whiners tiresome and boring after a while, and that's just a fact of life.

Ray A wrote: In a sense the exmo anger is like a cantankerous divorce...

I wonder if this makes Mormon anger like a cantankerous marriage, a cantankerous celestial marriage which never ends (and keeps trying to add more partners)?

Blixa wrote:

Ray A wrote: In a sense the exmo anger is like a cantankerous divorce...

I wonder if this makes Mormon anger like a cantakerous marriage, a cantakerous celestial marriage which never ends (and keeps trying to add more partners)?

I believe Mormon anger is a response to attacks on them. I've often said that Pahoran is a "Mormon Terminator", and he has one message to critics - leave us alone. If people insist on constantly ridiculing and attacking Mormonism, of course they are going to respond, and sometimes in anger as well.

Runtu “fragged” me yesterday. That’s ok though as I should have a BFG soon.

liz3564 wrote:I was just musing on something that Nehor mentioned on another thread. He made a reference to "this little war".

When I asked him what war he was referring to, he blithely said, "the war between apologists and critics."

Is that how many of you really feel? Do you feel that we are at war with one another? Is that where the vehemence and the disdain comes from on both sides at times?

Is this why the MAD apologists become so "up in arms" if they suspect a troll?

Not at all Liz. We are helping to guide people out of the Corporation. They are pushing the "crappy members" out.

What war?

Ray A wrote:

Blixa wrote:

Ray A wrote: In a sense the exmo anger is like a cantankerous divorce...

I wonder if this makes Mormon anger like a cantakerous marriage, a cantakerous celestial marriage which never ends (and keeps trying to add more partners)?

I believe Mormon anger is a response to attacks on them. I've often said that Pahoran is a "Mormon Terminator", and he has one message to critics - leave us alone. If people insist on constantly ridiculing and attacking Mormonism, of course they are going to respond, and sometimes in anger as well.

So, Ray, are you saying that Pahoran is justified in his tactics? This is where we disagree, if that is what you are saying.

If Pahoran only acted on the defensive, I would agree with you, but that is not how Pahoran works. He often attacks when there is no need for an attack to happen. He anticipates it.

Also, what is disappointing about Pahoran (and, for the record, I am not saying anything here that I have not said directly to him in various conversations) is that in spite of his gospel knowledge, he stoops to personal insults. There have been occasions on MAD when he had effectively proven his point, and went on to attack his opposer even when he really didn't need to. I never have been able to get a straight answer out of him as to why he does this.

liz3564 wrote:So, Ray, are you saying that Pahoran is justified in his tactics? This is where we disagree, if that is what you are saying.

If Pahoran only acted on the defensive, I would agree with you, but that is not how Pahoran works. He often attacks when there is no need for an attack to happen. He anticipates it.

Also, what is disappointing about Pahoran (and, for the record, I am not saying anything here that I have not said directly to him in various conversations) is that in spite of his gospel knowledge, he stoops to personal insults. There have been occasions on MAD when he had effectively proven his point, and went on to attack his opposer even when he really didn't need to. I never have been able to get a straight answer out of him as to why he does this.

Pahoran is no defender. He attacks relentlessly, and he most often engages in character assassination. It's always personal with Russell. That's why I don't respect him as an apologist. A real apologist would stick to the issues and defend the church. Russell doesn't do that.

For any apologists who care to answer this question:

Do you find it hypocritical to personally attack others?

Does this not go directly against Christ's teachings?

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not advocating taking abuse from others. I think that everyone has the right to defend themselves.

But why go on the attack?

It just isn't effective, in my opinion.

If you have, what you believe is "right on your side", shouldn't that be enough?