Tyler Livingston--Former FAIR Stalwart--Has Left the Church

[doubtingthomas]

There probably is somewhere. It's a side effect to the all-or-nothing approach to religion in general.

Or maybe not yet?

[tagriffy]

If not yet, then I'm some exMo will take the time and trouble someday.

[The Stig]

Seriously?

No.

But definitely someone posting as ttribe on the other board has left.

I can confirm ttribe has left church activity and resigned his membership.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

No.

But definitely someone posting as ttribe on the other board has left.

I can confirm ttribe has left church activity and resigned his membership.

What?!?!

That’s amazing. Do you know if he has an exit story? I thought ttribe was an Englund/MG type who was going to die a Morm despite the obvious fraud that it is.

- Doc

[Everybody Wang Chung]

What?!?!

That’s amazing. Do you know if he has an exit story? I thought ttribe was an Englund/MG type who was going to die a Morm despite he obvious fraud that it is.

- Doc

You're correct. ttribe was a pretty hardcore TBM.

Is it just me or are most of the "Contributors" over at MAD now ex-Mormon? To just name a few, Teancum, California Boy, ttribe, Analytics, HappyJackWagon, Tacenda, Sunstoned and Craig Speechly are all very critical of Church.

Even long time TBM posters like Nevo and Nehor seem to much more critical than supportive of LDS claims. It's not a very pro-Mormon board anymore.

Something is in the water over there. It's a completely different MAD compared to several years ago when Calm and Juliann freaked out and banned everyone who didn't toe the line.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

What?!?!

That’s amazing. Do you know if he has an exit story? I thought ttribe was an Englund/MG type who was going to die a Morm despite he obvious fraud that it is.

- Doc

You're correct. ttribe was a pretty hardcore TBM.

Is it just me or are most of the "Contributors" over at MAD now ex-Mormon? To just name a few, Teancum, California Boy, ttribe, Analytics, HappyJackWagon, Tacenda, Sunstoned and Craig Speechly are all very critical of Church.

Even long time TBM posters like Nevo and Nehor seem to much more critical than supportive of LDS claims. It's not a very pro-Mormon board anymore.

Something is in the water over there. It's a completely different MAD compared to several years ago when Calm and Juliann freaked out and banned everyone who didn't tow the line.

Yeah, things have shifted quite a bit. I got bounced fairly quickly when I posted over there, so I haven’t lurked or followed the board much, which is why this news was so surprising. Like, Nehor openly talking about his homosexuality was the last thing I read, which I found to be a shocking ‘cultural’ shift.

Anyway, ttribe, if you read this, I’m sure some of us would love to read your story. It’s a pretty epic change and, yeah, there you go.

- Doc

[Marcus]

What?!?!

That’s amazing. Do you know if he has an exit story? I thought ttribe was an Englund/MG type who was going to die a Morm despite he obvious fraud that it is.

- Doc

You're correct. ttribe was a pretty hardcore TBM.

Is it just me or are most of the "Contributors" over at MAD now ex-Mormon? To just name a few, Teancum, California Boy, ttribe, Analytics, HappyJackWagon, Tacenda, Sunstoned and Craig Speechly are all very critical of Church.

Even long time TBM posters like Nevo and Nehor seem to much more critical than supportive of LDS claims. It's not a very pro-Mormon board anymore.

Something is in the water over there. It's a completely different MAD compared to several years ago when Calm and Juliann freaked out and banned everyone who didn't tow the line.

Wow, happyjackwagon? Years ago, when I briefly tried posting there, that (then fully lds) poster was extremely welcoming and kind, one of the very few. Maybe it’s no surprise they are out now.

[malkie]

I may be wrong about this, but I remember stem as pretty much a defender of the church - both here (as in Mormon Discussions) and there.

[Moksha]

I hope RFM or BYP gets this guy as a guest on an upcoming show.

Beyond that, I hope one of you invites him (as well as the rest of the newly enlightened) to the Shades board.

[wenglund]

Being an apologist is one of the most spiritually perilous avocations one can follow, it appears. The road through Terra Mopologiana is strewn with dead testimonies and letters of resignation. Surely this says something about the defective condition of Mopologetics. I would caution anyone who wants to stay in the church to steer clear of critics AND, even more, Mopologists.

Agreed. The risk is part of the reason I left apologetics for what I now consider "gathering." Another reason I left is because it was, in large part, a massive waste of time and energy that would have been far better spent elsewhere. Countless hours of research and formulation of arguments and counterarguments as well as books and articles and web posts, have been devoted on all sides, with little or no movement either way--like two opposing linemen or sumo wrestlers repeatedly slamming against each other.

There are at least two reasons why I believe apologetics, in particular, is at high risk for loss of faith--and, no, I am not speaking about sin and the allure of sliding from living in the world to living of the world, though that can be a factor, but it is a factor that can also affect members generally. No, I have in mind the risks inherent within the apologetic topics and methodologies as well as the risk inherent within apologists, themselves.

First, in regards to the risks to apologists of their typical topics and methodologies, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that, with rare exception, the topics have nothing ultimately to do with the purpose of the gospel/church, nor in determining its verity and ability to realize that purpose. And, the methods engaged in between apologists and critics, tends to be human in origin and rely heavily on the arm of flesh--i.e. temporal evidence and human reasoning, rather than relying on God. The natural unreasonably sits in judgement of the spiritual. (1 Cor. 2:14)

Apologist may get so immersed in arguing academically this or that, that it may come to be viewed by them that the "truth" is determined by which side presumably "wins" the academic arguments. That which is irrelevant, becomes relevant, and the things of God become at risk of looking foolish to men--including the apologists.

This may explain why some apologists, after they flip from faithful to faithless, continue arguing on the other side using the same irrelevant and natural man evidence and reasoning.

Second, in regards to the risk to apologist of the apologists, themselves, is that as they immerse themselves in arguing with critics, particularly if they have become heavily reliant on the arm of flesh mentioned above, they may assume that "winning" the argument is up to them, or in other words, demonstrating the "truth" of the gospel/church is up to them. They may forget that the role of convincing and converting others rightly rest with the third member of the Godhead (the Holy Spirit), and at best their role is to simply make room for faith. And, the more they unwittingly usurp the role of the Holy Spirit, and presume to convince and convert, the more they are vulnerable to being convinced and converted by their fellow natural men.

This may explain why some apologists, after they flip from faithful to faithless, continue arguing as though they are in a position to convince and convert to their new side, whereas they aren't with those who look to God for conversion and convincing.

Of course, if you view truth and credibility through a tribal lens and thirst to see pesky critics insulted, then, by all means, hang out in Terra Mopologiana. You may ultimately lose your testimony, but your thirst for anger and revenge will regularly be slaked.

Agreed. Apologetics, like politics, particularly in a polarized climate and on cyber discussion boards, is strongly inclined towards contention and rancor. Even with the best of intention, things will often escalate and bring out the very worst in participants. Even seeming friendly ribbings can spiral into prolonged insult and name-calling fests, where people who were once civil and fond of each other, become angered and bitter enemies.

I found this happening with me quite often as an apologists, and even to some degree now as a "gatherer." I would begin posting with joy in my heart and a desire to respectfully interact with those I disagree with, and often by the end of the session I would feeling sick in my heart at what I had done and what had been done to me, and the profound waste and hurt of it all--not to mention my mind reeling from the bizarreness of what all had happened to no real good. And, no matter how hard I tried each time to have things go otherwise, eventually things kept ending up the same. So, I gave it up. I have had the same experience discussing politics online. And, while I am inclined to assume personal responsibility for my uncivil behavior, I believe the tribalism of many, though not all, apologists and critics alike, plays a contributing role.

Thanks, Wade Englund