StayLDS.com Doesn't Appreciate Honest Conversation

[_beanboots]

I recently signed up to be part of the forums on http://www.staylds.com/. I'm relatively knowledgeable about the Church, including some of its controversies. I'm a returned-missionary, an active member with a calling, and am a temple recommend holder. I only made 2 posts, both non-controversial, before I was booted. In their email to me, they even told me that I wasn't booted because of my comments. They kicked me because of my apologist site for missionaries. They told me in no uncertain terms that I was out because I openly discuss controversial topics.

Too many faithful members who are struggling leave because they feel like the church and its members are actively hiding facts. This type of blatant censorship only gives the critics credibility. StayLDS staff, if you believe that the only way to help people stay LDS is to protect them from fact, that says much more about your testimony than mine.

I want to thank Mormon Discussions for allowing me to post here. I'll do my best to merely present facts and allow people to come to their own conclusions.

I'm sorry you had that experience. You're not the only one who is the victim of John Dehlin's irrational fascist editorialization process.

[_Equality]

Anything I can do to not be seen as 'anti', I will.

The best way to do that is to set up a site in which you tell people that Thomas Monson pees lemonade and craps rose petals. If you do that, they won't call you an "anti-Mormon."

[_ZelphtheGreat]

The reason they booted you so quickly and are so defensive is that they know "the one true church" is not what it claims.
Even now a 'prophet, seer and revelator' who tells stories but does not testify of any restoration.

All they can do is nitpick and whine, bitch and moan and tell you to pray and get a warm feeling - but if the warm feeling comes telling you it is not true then it must be wrong.

Any outfit that teaches 'do what your leaders tell you even if it is wrong and you will be blessed' is in the running to be partners with Adolf Hitler and every other lowlife through history.

The Priestcraft priesthood at the top would not have it any other way.

[_Bob Loblaw]

The best way to do that is to set up a site in which you tell people that Thomas Monson pees lemonade and s***s rose petals. If you do that, they won't call you an "anti-Mormon."

Well, that's certainly not the case with me. I'd just like to see something approaching real research and care, not just quickly regurgitated talking points.

[_beanboots]

The reason they booted you so quickly and are so defensive is that they know "the one true church" is not what it claims.
Even now a 'prophet, seer and revelator' who tells stories but does not testify of any restoration.

All they can do is nitpick and whine, bitch and moan and tell you to pray and get a warm feeling - but if the warm feeling comes telling you it is not true then it must be wrong.

Any outfit that teaches 'do what your leaders tell you even if it is wrong and you will be blessed' is in the running to be partners with Adolf Hitler and every other lowlife through history.

The Priestcraft priesthood at the top would not have it any other way.

Rough day?

[_Equality]

Your site frequently--in fact, usually--drops difficult information on the reader without any meaningful context to make sense of it.

Don sounds a lot like this fellow defending Scientology:

“It’s a piece of cake to take a religion out of context. There is so much material, and if you find one little detail that you don’t agree with it is easy to take it out of context,” Holzinger argued.

http://mustangdaily.net/VideoSpeakercomesreadytoexplaindefendScientology/

[_Stormy Waters]

I realize this may not be a popular position, but I have to say I agree mostly with Don. If this was an attempt to be fair, it's a spectacular failure.

I agree with the assesment that it sounds suspiciously like someone trying to get negative information to perspective missionaries under a false pretense. Someone trying to get past the well poisoning.
If that is the case I disagree with the approach. I don't approve of it, and I think it doesn't help church critics.

What I dislike is Bradley calling it anti-Mormon, asserting that it almost certainly is the members of Mormon Think behind it, and then assuring us that he won't be reading FutureMissionary's or anyone else's replies to his assertions while he spreads those assertions far and wide.
I don't think that many were really going to defend the website, or FutureMissionary. I'm not interested in being an apologist for either. What I wanted to do, and what others did was point out that (1) potential missionaries are not taught this information, whether in a faith promoting context or not, (2) the hypocrisy of being upset over a lopsided presentation of history, and (3) that critics probably lie about who they are because the church has poisoned the well against them. That doesn't make it right, but there is a reason for it.

[_Bob Loblaw]

What I dislike is Bradley calling it anti-Mormon, asserting that it almost certainly is the members of Mormon Think behind it, and then assuring us that he won't be reading FutureMissionary's or anyone else's replies to his assertions while he spreads those assertions far and wide.
I don't think that many were really going to defend the website, or FutureMissionary. I'm not interested in being an apologist for either. What I wanted to do, and what others did was point out that (1) potential missionaries are not taught this information, whether in a faith promoting context or not, (2) the hypocrisy of being upset over a lopsided presentation of history, and (3) that critics probably lie about who they are because the church has poisoned the well against them. That doesn't make it right, but there is a reason for it.

+10

[_Equality]

What I dislike is Bradley calling it anti-Mormon, asserting that it almost certainly is the members of Mormon Think behind it, and then assuring us that he won't be reading FutureMissionary's or anyone else's replies to his assertions while he spreads those assertions far and wide.
I don't think that many were really going to defend the website, or FutureMissionary. I'm not interested in being an apologist for either. What I wanted to do, and what others did was point out that (1) potential missionaries are not taught this information, whether in a faith promoting context or not, (2) the hypocrisy of being upset over a lopsided presentation of history, and (3) that critics probably lie about who they are because the church has poisoned the well against them. That doesn't make it right, but there is a reason for it.

And then Don posted on Facebook a warning to all LDS that the FM site is "anti-Mormon" and designed to "hoodwink" future missionaries and destroy their testimonies (Caveat Lector, he says). Then a discussion ensued in the comments in which sanctimonious and arrogant believers asserted the old "if you never heard about the rock in the hat translation method you were lazy" canard, and that Primary children know about the seer stones and don't think it is any big deal, and only "anti-Mormons" think it has any relevance to anything. To those comments I posted one comment, the following:

What a strange discussion. Don says the future missionary site is "anti-Mormon" and that it is "hoodwinking" unsuspecting prospective members who stumble upon information, such as the fact that Joseph Smith used a rock in a hat to translate the Book of Mormon. Then Weston asserts repeatedly that every Primary child in the church knows about the rock in the hat and could not care less about it. So what is it about the future missionary site that is so dangerous as to warrant the warning from Don? If the information is all just regurgitated "anti-Mormon" polemics in a slicker package, what is there to fear? How would a prospective Mormon [missionary] get "hoodwinked" by information that is commonly known by Primary children who have assessed the information and deemed it irrelevant to their burning testimonies?

My post was immediately deleted and I was summarily barred from viewing the page without further argument. Must have struck a nerve.

[_Bob Loblaw]

My post was immediately deleted and I was summarily barred from viewing the page without further argument. Must have struck a nerve.

I hope you took a shower after going over there. Don't want to get that crap on the furniture.