DiscussMormonism.com

John -- I'm curious. Why do you spend so much time personally maligning your former faith so much? I mean, you don't make money off of it like the Tanners or Metcalf.

Why so much time? Is there some therapeutic value to it? I mean, you can't possibly be learning anything from anybody on this Board, do you?

Until you realize that the church isn't actually true, and go through the same kinds of feelings and emotions that John, myself, and many other on this board have gone through, it's quite likely that you'll never understand the answer even if John shows up in this thread and tells you.

You won't consider it legitimate so long as you are in thrall to the belief system, and therefor must assume that every criticism John and other have of the church isn't true. I can understand why you must be dismayed at people who believe things you believe to be wrong about the church and the evidence that the church is just a manmade institution like every other church out there. But can you empathize with us just enough to put yourself into our shoes if we happen to be right about the church? Would that not change everything?

And we are right about the church. It's manmade, every jot and tittle, down to the very last word, the last copy of the Book of Mormon, down to every last conference talk, priesthood blessing, and temple ordinance. It's manmade in exactly the same sense as all of the Catholic rites and ceremonies are manmade. It's manmade in exactly the same sense as the Hindus who tear their flesh off with iron hooks and believe it will have some effect on their soul or whatever.

You are not special in your membership of the church, Bob. You are just like the other several billion people who are members of or adherents to manmade religions.

If you really want to know why someone like John can stand to talk about and criticize the LDS faith on a board like this, start by realizing how manmade it all is, how much of a mind job it is (not out of the ordinary in terms of religion - in fact it's just the Mormon version of a phenomenon religious people all over the world experience), and how much it has affected his life, and still does. Then you might understand. If you're not serious about understanding, and are just throwing bombs at him, then go jump off a cliff. With all due respect.

rcrocket wrote:John -- I'm curious. Why do you spend so much time personally maligning your former faith so much? I mean, you don't make money off of it like the Tanners or Metcalf.

Why so much time? Is there some therapeutic value to it? I mean, you can't possibly be learning anything from anybody on this Board, do you?

No, Bob, you really aren't curious. Maybe you should ask yourself the same questions. My response? How people spend their own time is none of your business. No one here is perpetrating hate crimes against you or your co-religionists, Bob. Give the insult and the drama a rest. It is occasionally amusing, but it gets old.

rcrocket wrote:John -- I'm curious. Why do you spend so much time personally maligning your former faith so much? I mean, you don't make money off of it like the Tanners or Metcalf.

It's Metcalfe.

John doesn't "hate" the Church. Nor does he "hate" Mormons.

Your definition of "hate" should really be classed under "valid criticism".

I think, and I think that John thinks too, that there are some very worthwhile things in Mormonism. But the true believers, like yourself, must have it either black or white.

Given that choice, can you really blame anyone for being so critical?

Once again, I must pay thanks to my mentor, Will. Who persuaded me that not one ounce of charity should be granted to Mormonism (and John will disagree with me, I bet).

You belong to a cult founded by a whoring, womanising "prophet". I tried the "halfway" approach, but I've learned, by sad experience, that this simply isn't possible. So I declare your "prophet" a fraud, and an abject charlatan!! If I must choose.

Ray A wrote:Your definition of "hate" should really be classed under "valid criticism".

Well put.

This is why it's usually impossible to have genuine dialogue between believer and ex-believer. Believers interpret criticism of LDS truth claims by exbelievers as a personal attack, and as an expression of hatred towards Mormonism, and possibly towards Mormons themselves. While there are undoubtedly some exbelievers who really do hate Mormonism, and could be rightfully accused of such, John is a rather mild and moderate critic - yet even his criticisms is still interpreted as "hate".

This looks to me like Bob just trying to get John's goat. It's obvious John doesn't hate anyone or anything. But he has been accused of it before, and is a bit sensitive about that sort of accusation. Why crocket would feel the need to attack John I don't know, but I can't believe he really thinks John is a hater.

John clearly does not hate his former faith, and he seems to be constantly on the lookout for middle ground. I think more than anything, he just wants the apologists to understand his point of view. I believe that John still attends Sacrament Meeting with his family. I know if I still had to go every week, it would keep me agitated.

Crock is just a playground bully.

Runtu is probably one of the most soft spoken, kind and articulate critics this board has. This is why Crock singles him out. Crock, I am much more crude and rude than Runtu ever thought of being, Why not attack me? It's simple, you're a bully.

Crock wants to play games with people's heads. My head is made for than. Change my nose, give me a new mustache, a new hat. Crock you don't and can't realize how childish you look. Do you want my daddy's address so you can tattle on me?

Take some advice Crock and reread the posts, if you read them the first time, the few already posted. Seth and beastie and the others are spot on, prove to us you can learn something.

There are a lot of things I hate, and Mormonism isn't one of them. Bob's questions tell me a lot more about him than they do about me.

One thing I am happy about these days is that in the past, Bob's silly post would have really bothered me. Not so much anymore.