DiscussMormonism.com

Randomizing my driving music the other day, John Dehlin's interview with Tom Phillips popped up ... I've listened to it again the last couple days.

Here is a man that "choose" very deliberately, and after losing his wife and family stated that he would do it all again .... why ... why would you do that asked John.
Something to the effect of:

"If I choose like others to simply put aside the truth and continue on teaching my grandchildren a lie, in which they waste much of their life in, then comes a day that they discover the true and hate me for not warning them, for not sharing the truth with them."

yes mr. green there well may be very serious consequences to your choices. Your children, grandchildren and onward might well have to pay that price for you.

As with the likes of Tom and Craig ... I also will choose the consequences of integrity and truth.

Chap wrote:There ought to be a name for this particular rhetorical trope, since it is used by such a large number of religionists of all varieties to reproach those who cease to believe. I suppose it is a good way of exorcising the threat to the remaining believers' confidence that they have made the right decision by staying in the organization. If apostates look happy - then no problem, that will make their eventual regret even more devastating when it comes. If they seem unhappy, then look - the regret has already begun. Good move, eh?

On a serious note this author coined the term Kafkatrapping:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2122

The aim of the kafkatrap is to produce a kind of free-floating guilt in the subject, a conviction of sinfulness that can be manipulated by the operator to make the subject say and do things that are convenient to the operator’s personal, political, or religious goals

.

- Doc

GR33N wrote:

Craig Paxton wrote: f*** You! You sanctimonious, holier than thou, bastard.

Boo hoo, did I hurt your feelings? Somebody disagrees with you and you resort to name calling?

Nope. A patronizing and deliberately provocative post (including a dose of freudenschade) was answered by the target with appropriate expressions of contempt.

And don't say you weren't gratified by the opportunity this gave you for further sanctimony. Now you have your own real, live 'angry ex-Mormon' to talk about! How reassuring for you.

GR33N wrote:For members who rely on the CoJCoLDS to provide the majority of the social, ethical and emotional structures of their lives have missed the mark.

The decision to leave such an organization does have costs and paying those costs can clearly be wrenching but no different the leaving a job you have had for many years.

I think this tells us that your depth of attachment to the Church is not what its leaders would want. That you think such a tenuous and temporary association is 'how it is' suggest that you are a bit less of a member than you have previously claimed to be. It also diminishes the decision to join the Church to nothing more than the browsing of the 'Situations Vacant' part of the local newspaper scouring for the job that pays the best regardless of job satisfaction. You think you condemn CP but when you think about you are saying, it actually damns the Church.

I fail to see the bravery for an apostate to share with a group whose majority are apostates or non members that he chose to turn his back on the gospel of Jesus Christ. Especially when fellow members of this board will jump to the defense if anyone calls into question their point of view.

So, the fact that Apostles and First Presidency members avoid any and all discussion opportunities with people other than each other and carefully selected audiences, and that they have delegated all other public speaking to a faceless PR machine whose comments can be disavowed at some point, is to you a cowardly way of them preaching the Gospel?

GR33N wrote:

Craig Paxton wrote: f*** You! You sanctimonious, holier than thou, bastard.

Boo hoo, did I hurt your feelings? Somebody disagrees with you and you resort to name calling?

Ummm...did you hurt my feelings? ...nope not really...you merely exposed yourself for who you really are, a sanctimonious, holier than thou, heartless-bastard, by attacking me for having expressed some true feelings over what could have been had the truth claims of the Mormon church been...well actually true. What you fail to realize is that in condemning me you are in fact condemning Mormonism…for this is a made up creation of the Mormon construct. Joseph created his Mormon church worldview…a false world built on a foundation of fiction, lies and half-truths. Believers inside this worldview can and do achieve a state of happiness, hopes and dreams of a perfect Mormon future built on a belief in this false worldview. But it is a false hope, a dream built on lies that will never be fulfilled.

Mormonism is great at creating this artificial, synthetic worldview and then selling the pre-packaged future results should we abide inside this false-reality. But all Mormonism is really selling is a false hope. It works great if you remain inside the bubble…but if that bubble bursts and you come to see the scam…. then yes you come to realize that all of those dreams you had as a young Mormon growing up will never be achieve unless you are willing, as some chose to do, live the lies and continue the fraud by passing it on to the next generation. I refused to do this.

In a recent “in order to” podcast one of the guests shared a great analogy.

Mobsters create a false problem by throwing a rock through the windows of mom and pop stores and then offering to solve the so called crime problem that they themselves created…for money of course.

Mormonism does the same exact thing. They create a problem where none exists and then sell their solution to their self-created problem back on its adherents with their false worldview. Well I refuse to play their game. Do I wish it were all it claims to be…of course who wouldn’t want to be god-like, create worlds and have eternal sexual relationships…but it’s all a lie designed to entrap the human family in a false hope that will never result in the promised prize.

See how angry Craig Paxton is.

That proves that he really hates himself for failing to live the gospel. Instead he abandoned the Church, because he so much wanted to sin, and he was probably offended too.

All this anger against the Church is really meant to distract him from being angry at himself, and at Satan who led him away from the gospel.

One day he will be really sorry when Jesus asks him why he broke his covenants. Then we shall all be glad that we paid our tithing and kept ourselves worthy and pure.

(I hope I have saved a few TBMs the trouble of posting on this thread.)

{Edited for one typo]

Chap wrote:See how angry Craig Paxton is.

That proves that he is really hates himself for failing to live the gospel. Instead he abandoned the church, because he so much wanted to sin, and he was probably offended too.

All this anger against the Church is really meant to distract him from being angry at himself, and at Satan who led him away from the gospel.

One day he will be really sorry when Jesus asks him why he broke his covenants. Then we shall all be glad that we paid our tithing and kept ourselves worthy and pure.

(I hope I have saved a few TBMs the trouble of posting on this thread.)

Yeah, verily, thou hast done well. And in so doing, thou showeth us, once again, thine own respect for the law of Poe.

Is there any reason to assume that Church callings have ever been based on meritocracy? I thought it was more based on how well decision makers knew the selected (or at least how they had been inspired by a blueberry muffin for breakfast or perhaps a spot of mustard the night before).

Bazooka wrote:So, the fact that Apostles and First Presidency members avoid any and all discussion opportunities with people other than each other and carefully selected audiences, and that they have delegated all other public speaking to a faceless PR machine whose comments can be disavowed at some point, is to you a cowardly way of them preaching the Gospel?

I don't know that this is true. Over on this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=36555

I referenced a recent interview in which Richard Turley was rather open and/or transparent in regards to some of the controversies surrounding polygamy/polyandry. I'm sure that this example of a "putting a face to it" source of information that comes from the upper echelons of the church organization is not unique.

Regards,
MG

mentalgymnast wrote:

Bazooka wrote:So, the fact that Apostles and First Presidency members avoid any and all discussion opportunities with people other than each other and carefully selected audiences, and that they have delegated all other public speaking to a faceless PR machine whose comments can be disavowed at some point, is to you a cowardly way of them preaching the Gospel?

I don't know that this is true. Over on this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=36555

I referenced a recent interview in which Richard Turley was rather open and/or transparent in regards to some of the controversies surrounding polygamy/polyandry. I'm sure that this example of a "putting a face to it" source of information that comes from the upper echelons of the church organization is not unique.

Regards,
MG

In what way is a Richard Turley interview a good example not the Apostles and First Presidency avoiding a discussion opportunity with people not carefully selected?

You've just supported my point, though I suspect you didn't do so deliberately.

In his interview with the BBC Jeffrey R Holland boldly stated he was going to avail himself to directly engage with those apostates the interviewer had spoken to. Can you tell me how that promise worked out?