Ex-Mormons Shut up and Sing

[_Kevin Graham]

With a moniker like "Smart Bitch" does this mean she is prohibited from posting in the celestial forum?

[_desert_vulture]

Ex-Mormons are encouraged to Shut up and Sing

No one is allowed to say why they are hurt and why they will never belong to another organized religion again

I think the church hierarchy exhibits a huge disconnect when it comes to acknowledging the pain and suffering of ex-mormons. They simply assume that ex-mormons are involved in a sin of some form, and are obviously feeling the accompanying pain, guilt and agony associated with sin. It never crosses their minds that the pain and suffering are associated with the most colossal betrayal imaginable. Many of us have devoted our entire lives to the church, only to find out that it is built on a sandy foundation. And we know what the Lord said about a house built upon a sandy foundation, that it will evenutally fall. When church leaders ostracize ex-mormons by trying to enforce some imaginary gag-order, they are simply trying to plug the leaks in the dam.

As the word gets out about Mormonism, the church membership will continue to hemorrhage as members resign in increasing numbers upon learning the New Church History. Institutionally, it is sad in one sense, but in another sense it is simple human progression. Individually, the sense of pain and loss will be replaced by the bright optimism of a new life, uninhibited by dogma. People are continuing to evolve and will eventually leave superstition and magical thinking behind, in favor of logic and reason. Mormonism has had its day in the sun, but its future is definitely cloudy. There will be slow growth, or no growth for years and decades to come, and then the church will die a slow death when reason replaces dogma, and logic enlightens the membership to seek out real truth.

[_Runtu]

Ex-Mormons are encouraged to Shut up and Sing

No one is allowed to say why they are hurt and why they will never belong to another organized religion again

I think the church hierarchy exhibits a huge disconnect when it comes to acknowledging the pain and suffering of ex-mormons. They simply assume that ex-mormons are involved in a sin of some form, and are obviously feeling the accompanying pain, guilt and agony associated with sin. It never crosses their minds that the pain and suffering are associated with the most colossal betrayal imaginable. Many of us have devoted our entire lives to the church, only to find out that it is built on a sandy foundation. And we know what the Lord said about a house built upon a sandy foundation, that it will evenutally fall. When church leaders ostracize ex-mormons by trying to enforce some imaginary gag-order, they are simply trying to plug the leaks in the dam.

As the word gets out about Mormonism, the church membership will continue to hemorrhage as members resign in increasing numbers upon learning the New Church History. Institutionally, it is sad in one sense, but in another sense it is simple human progression. Individually, the sense of pain and loss will be replaced by the bright optimism of a new life, uninhibited by dogma. People are continuing to evolve and will eventually leave superstition and magical thinking behind, in favor of logic and reason. Mormonism has had its day in the sun, but its future is definitely cloudy. There will be slow growth, or no growth for years and decades to come, and then the church will die a slow death when reason replaces dogma, and logic enlightens the membership to seek out real truth.

I think the church's "death" if it happens at all will be long and drawn out, simply because of the sheer numbers of births and the hold of tradition and "testimony." I do think the church is well past its peak in developed countries, but growth will continue in places where information is harder to come by. It will be interesting to watch what happens to the institution as I grow older. Bruce McConkie famously said that the "caravan moves on." Maybe so, but it will be a smaller, slower caravan.

[_MormonMendacity]

I think the church's "death" if it happens at all will be long and drawn out, simply because of the sheer numbers of births and the hold of tradition and "testimony." I do think the church is well past its peak in developed countries, but growth will continue in places where information is harder to come by. It will be interesting to watch what happens to the institution as I grow older. Bruce McConkie famously said that the "caravan moves on." Maybe so, but it will be a smaller, slower caravan.

I agree. It's already recasting itself in many subtle ways, in my opinion. The New England Steeple program, the increased font for "Jesus Christ" in CoJCoLDS's logo, the changes in the temple covenant, women saying prayers in Sacrament Meeting and conferences, etc.

I think it's morphing to become less provocative. Why else, I sincerely ask, would President Hinckley distance himself from some of the core doctrines as if he didn't know they were such? It won't go away, ever.

[_beastie]

Wade,

According to Juliann and the church's own definition of "apostate", there is never an appropriate time for exmormons to share their criticisms of the church.

Two exmormons can share the exact same negative opinion of the church and their experiences in it, share the same negative views of the church's "truth claims", and only be differentiated by the fact that one speaks out and one remains silent, and the speaking exmormon is labeled an apostate who cannot be trusted to share a reliable exit narrative (not to mention is inspired by Satan, if we leave aside sociology for the church's definitions and claims) while the silent exmormon is simply a "leave-taker" with no negative associations at all.

Shut up and sing. The church doesn't really care what you think about the church, as long as you shut up about it.

If you have evidence you believe demonstrates otherwise, please share it.

Your the one making the claim. So, the burden of proof is on you. (Hint: your biased opinion does not count as evidence).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade,

Is it that you simply haven't read any of the pertinent FAIR threads, or is it that your memory is dismal, or your comprehension so poor? This is one of the most basic points in Juliann's theory, and yet you challenge it?

Well, I'll let Juliann offer her own evidence.

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=19588

juliann Nov 10 2006, 01:09 PM

Deconversion stories are carefully crafted by those who need admittance into another group (whether it be a religion or the internet). An exie that is aligning with anti-Mormons can't stay with a message of peace and love toward all. So the exit story has to morph into what the group demands. That is why they are so formulaic. They have to take care of several issues...the story has to explain why they stayed as long as they did and participated in the horrors, and turned on their family/friends, thus they must be helpless dupes. The story must always keep the former group in a bad light (remember...they have turned on friends, need to keep up a good reason to justify that).

The story typically involves a growing body of doubts, a dawning realization that they have been tricked that culminates in a moment of enlightenment. Exit stories are usually big on the Pauline model of conversion...the flash of light thing. At that point, it becomes a matter of conscience. Conscience always Trump's loyalty to family/friends. Then the stories must be elaborated. There is a stock fill-in-the-blank "atrocity tale" (I was lied to, made to give money, spiritually abused, etc) and a "captivity tale", (I was brainwashed, deceived, manipulated). As the person seeks acceptance with a new group, they will have to tailor their exit tale to be acceptable to that group.


DISCLAIMER: The vast majority of people who leave the church are never heard from again...it would just be a vague story of disenchantment, non-acceptance or whatever. They don't publish inflammatory sagas and they don't harrass members of the group they left. They do not turn on family/friends and have no need to seek out another group (an interesting phenomena in and of itself when they claim to be escaping a controlling group only to sign up with another). So, angy exmos, please don't try to hide behind this group of people.

(edited to add missing negative)

So, the words "carefully crafted", "story has to morph", "justify turning on friends", "tailor their exit" story should be plain enough even for you, Wade.

This is the whole point of Juliann's theory. It is not simply to provide a sociological definition of "apostate". It is to provide a justification for still believing members to disbelieve and disregard what apostates SAY about Mormonism, and their experience therein.

In other words, apostates are not the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY in what they think or believe.

Now, as to the line in the sand: what makes an apostate is that he/she talks out about the church, be it in a book, a web site, whatever.

Same thread:

juliann Nov 10 2006, 02:42 PM

The sociologist of religion's definition of an "angry ex" anything:


QUOTE
The apostate is a defector who is aligned with an oppositional coalition in an effort to broaden a dispute, and embraces public claims making activities to attack his or her former group. Unlike typical leave takers whose responses range from indifference to quiet disenchantment, the apostate assumes a vituperative or hostile posture and pursues a moral campaign to discredit the group.

Daniel Carson Johnson, “Apostates Who Never Were: The Social Construction of Absque Facto Apostate Narratives,” in The Politics of Religious Apostasy: The Role of Apostates in the Transformation of Religious Movements, ed. David G. Bromley (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1998), 109.


An official LDS definition:


QUOTE
Among the activities considered apostate to the Church include when members “(1) repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders; (2) persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after being corrected by their bishops or higher authority; or (3) continue to follow the teachings of apostate cults (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishops or higher authority” (General Handbook of Instructions, 1989, p. 10-3).

See, it doesn't matter if 'leave takers' (Juliann's current term since the problem with claiming all silent exmo's were defectors, accepting the moral responsibility for the failure of the relationship, and leaving in way that leaves the legitimacy of the group intact, became so apparent that not even she could wish it away) share the exact same opinions and beliefs about the LDS church as their vocal cousins, "apostates". They SHUT UP ABOUT IT. And that fact alone is what enables them to be the far preferred (in Juliann's eyes) "leave taker" versus "apostate". SHUTTING UP is the crucial factor.

sethbag made several pertinent comments:

Same thread

Sethbag Nov 12 2006, 11:00 AM

One thing that occurs to me with Juliann's quotes, and this has bothered me for some time with them, as this isn't the first time they've come up, is that they do indeed undermine a person who leaves a cult in their attempts to describe their experience. It literally is attempting to rob such a person of their voice, by suggesting that anything they say is just the ranting of someone with an agenda, an axe to grind, etc.

What's really interesting to me is that this was not directed at LDS apostates, but rather apostates in general, from a lot of different cults.

So, someone who leaves the Hare Krishnas as an apostate is somehow just being unreasonable, with some destructive agenda?

Someone who leaves Scientology as an apostate is just someone with an axe to grind, whose motives are a priori to be suspect?

Someone who leaves the Unification Church (ie: the Moonies) is automatically to have their exit story denigrated and suspected, because they obviously just left with an agenda?

What boggles my mind is that an LDS person believes that all of these churches/cults are in fact false, and that in a lot of cases cults can in fact be very destructive to peoples' lives. One would think that an LDS person would have sympathy with those who "see the light" and leave the Moonies or some other cult. But no, in an attempt to subvert the apostates from the LDS church by casting all of their exit stories under some pall of questionability and bad motives, she's subverting all of the apostates from cults she should actually think that people should apostatize from.

Juliann's response:

What boggles my mind is the presumptuousness in this statement! Why should it bother me if someone makes a choice to join the Moonies as opposed to the Catholics? Do they terrorize neighborhoods? They don't mow their lawns? What is it that would make you think that you can decide which group is good or bad for another person?

How odd that someone who believes in the "one true church" that ALONE has the power to perform saving ordinances ni the name of JC, and is a church heavily invested in proselytizing, would make this statement. I thought one of the primary purposes of the LDS church was to convert others.

Sethbag's next statement:

Sethbag Nov 12 2006, 12:30 PM

Juliann, you are differentiating between what you (or your sources) are calling leave-takers, and what you (or your sources) are calling apostates. These are two labels, used to describe an innumerable number of individuals. You are pigeon-holing anyone who left a religion into these two categories, and implying a lack of credibility, or untrustworthy motives, behind one of these two categories. Interestingly, the category being pilloried is the one category which presents anything like a threat to your chosen religion. Do you see anything like an intellectual conflict of interest here? And if the researchers who formulated the categorical descriptions you are citing were in fact backed by what can only be described as a vicious mind cult, can you not see how they themselves were in a conflict of interest, intellectually speaking?

You, nor they, have ever actually demonstrated by it is more trustworthy or credible, or desirable, to be a "leave-taker" as you (they) describe them, rather than an "apostate". Let's go back in time a little. It's a month before the Heaven's Gate bunch offed themselves to get to the great and spacious alien vessel behind the comet. One of the members realizes what's happening within that cult, how delusional it all is, and knows that their fellow members are planning harm to themselves in accordance with their beliefs. Is it more or less virtuous, or trustworthy, or credible, for this person to leave the cult and fade away, and go pick up their life somewhere else, and be quiet about it? Or for this person to trumpet what they know to write to the news organizations and "expose" the cult's leadership and beliefs? Or put it up on the web? Or write a book about it?

According to your definitions, that person should just fade away. Then they are a relatively benign "leave-taker". No harm, no foul.

I actually disagree with your hijacking of the term "apostate" as well. Most people understand the term to mean simply someone who has left their religion, party, cause, or what have you. In fact that explanation is paraphrased from one dictionary definition that I saw of the word. The common usage of "apostate" includes both the "leave-takers" and the "apostates" of your definitions. Your sources seem to be creating a jargon version of the common word and narrowing its definition, and then you seem to be taking this jargon version of the word and tossing it back into your normal conversations. I do not recognize this as a valid approach.

Again, I find it awfully convenient that the dividing line between apostates and leave-takers by your original sources happens to fall right on the line separating those who pose a threat to their particular religious foundation, from those who don't.

Juliann bickered with him over the term apostate, but ignored the larger, much more important points.

Which are:

1) per Juliann's model, exiters of any organization should always SHUT UP. This defies common sense and history. There are cases when groups are truly dangerous, to the members and the larger society. These exiters should SPEAK UP. The reason Juliann won't go there is because that leads to the unthinkable, for her: admitting that some LDS apostates are behaving ethically by speaking up against the chuch,

because they honestly believe the church is causing harm.

2) per Juliann's model, the only "bad exiters" are those who speak up. It is hardly a coincidence that it is the act of SPEAKING UP that threatens the group's legitimacy.

Again, shut up and sing!

[_Dr. Shades]

Does Dumb Ass get to post in the Celestial forum also, or does her new user name effectively banish her to the Telestial world and Outer Darkness.

With a moniker like "Smart Bitch" does this mean she is prohibited from posting in the celestial forum?

That's correct. As a condition to changing her screen name, she agreed to cease posting in the Celestial Forum.

[_asbestosman]

Does Dumb Ass get to post in the Celestial forum also, or does her new user name effectively banish her to the Telestial world and Outer Darkness.

With a moniker like "Smart Bitch" does this mean she is prohibited from posting in the celestial forum?

That's correct. As a condition to changing her screen name, she agreed to cease posting in the Celestial Forum.

Does this mean I can post in all forums with my current moniker and then change it to something profane like "f***" and have the profane moniker plastered in forums where it doesn't belong because it retroactively changes those posts too? Just sayin'.

[_Dr. Shades]

That's correct. As a condition to changing her screen name, she agreed to cease posting in the Celestial Forum.

Does this mean I can post in all forums with my current moniker and then change it to something profane like "f***" and have the profane moniker plastered in forums where it doesn't belong because it retroactively changes those posts too? Just sayin'.

I thought of that problem, too. I briefly considered deleting all her posts from the Celestial Forum--assuming I could get her permission, of course--but then figured that replies and context would be lost from portions of threads wherein people responded to her, so I decided to let it slide this time.

As for your nightmare scenario, I simply hope it won't happen.

[_wenglund]

Wade,

According to Juliann and the church's own definition of "apostate", there is never an appropriate time for exmormons to share their criticisms of the church.

Two exmormons can share the exact same negative opinion of the church and their experiences in it, share the same negative views of the church's "truth claims", and only be differentiated by the fact that one speaks out and one remains silent, and the speaking exmormon is labeled an apostate who cannot be trusted to share a reliable exit narrative (not to mention is inspired by Satan, if we leave aside sociology for the church's definitions and claims) while the silent exmormon is simply a "leave-taker" with no negative associations at all.

Shut up and sing. The church doesn't really care what you think about the church, as long as you shut up about it.

If you have evidence you believe demonstrates otherwise, please share it.

Your the one making the claim. So, the burden of proof is on you. (Hint: your biased opinion does not count as evidence).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

No it's not, since Beastie is the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY of what she thinks and believes.

If her claim was about what she believes and thinks (not to be confused with the claim resulting from what she thinks and believes, then you may have a point. And, if there wre some question about whether the claim is what she believes or thinks, then you may also have a point there as well. It's neither, so you don't have a point.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund0-

[_wenglund]

Wade,

According to Juliann and the church's own definition of "apostate", there is never an appropriate time for exmormons to share their criticisms of the church.

Two exmormons can share the exact same negative opinion of the church and their experiences in it, share the same negative views of the church's "truth claims", and only be differentiated by the fact that one speaks out and one remains silent, and the speaking exmormon is labeled an apostate who cannot be trusted to share a reliable exit narrative (not to mention is inspired by Satan, if we leave aside sociology for the church's definitions and claims) while the silent exmormon is simply a "leave-taker" with no negative associations at all.

Shut up and sing. The church doesn't really care what you think about the church, as long as you shut up about it.

If you have evidence you believe demonstrates otherwise, please share it.

Your the one making the claim. So, the burden of proof is on you. (Hint: your biased opinion does not count as evidence).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade,

Is it that you simply haven't read any of the pertinent FAIR threads, or is it that your memory is dismal, or your comprehension so poor? This is one of the most basic points in Juliann's theory, and yet you challenge it?

Well, I'll let Juliann offer her own evidence.

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=19588

juliann Nov 10 2006, 01:09 PM

Deconversion stories are carefully crafted by those who need admittance into another group (whether it be a religion or the internet). An exie that is aligning with anti-Mormons can't stay with a message of peace and love toward all. So the exit story has to morph into what the group demands. That is why they are so formulaic. They have to take care of several issues...the story has to explain why they stayed as long as they did and participated in the horrors, and turned on their family/friends, thus they must be helpless dupes. The story must always keep the former group in a bad light (remember...they have turned on friends, need to keep up a good reason to justify that).

The story typically involves a growing body of doubts, a dawning realization that they have been tricked that culminates in a moment of enlightenment. Exit stories are usually big on the Pauline model of conversion...the flash of light thing. At that point, it becomes a matter of conscience. Conscience always Trump's loyalty to family/friends. Then the stories must be elaborated. There is a stock fill-in-the-blank "atrocity tale" (I was lied to, made to give money, spiritually abused, etc) and a "captivity tale", (I was brainwashed, deceived, manipulated). As the person seeks acceptance with a new group, they will have to tailor their exit tale to be acceptable to that group.


DISCLAIMER: The vast majority of people who leave the church are never heard from again...it would just be a vague story of disenchantment, non-acceptance or whatever. They don't publish inflammatory sagas and they don't harrass members of the group they left. They do not turn on family/friends and have no need to seek out another group (an interesting phenomena in and of itself when they claim to be escaping a controlling group only to sign up with another). So, angy exmos, please don't try to hide behind this group of people.

(edited to add missing negative)

So, the words "carefully crafted", "story has to morph", "justify turning on friends", "tailor their exit" story should be plain enough even for you, Wade.

It is certainly plain enough to me that this doesn't in the least suggest that: "The church doesn't really care what you think about the church, as long as you shut up about it" as you claimed. No one could reasonably interpret it as evidence for your claim. It mearly distinguishes between the two types of ex-mormon groups (the relatively active in speak out vs. those who have relatively little to say). Surely, even you can see that.

Furthermore, it in no way supports your's and SB's claim that: the Church is telling ex-mormons to "shut up and sing".

This is the whole point of Juliann's theory. It is not simply to provide a sociological definition of "apostate". It is to provide a justification for still believing members to disbelieve and disregard what apostates SAY about Mormonism, and their experience therein.

Even if your mind reading here of Juliann is correct (it is not), it still doesn't support your previous claim that: "The church doesn't really care what you think about the church, as long as you shut up about it." And, it certainly doesn't support your's and SB's claim that: the Church is telling ex-mormons to "shut up and sing".

In other words, apostates are not the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY in what they think or believe.

Even if these words you are putting into Juliann's mouth were correct (they are not), it still doesn't support your previous claim that: "The church doesn't really care what you think about the church, as long as you shut up about it." And, it certainly doesn't support your's and SB's claim that: the Church is telling ex-mormons to "shut up and sing".

to the line in the sand: what makes an apostate is that he/she talks out about the church, be it in a book, a web site, whatever.

Same thread:

juliann Nov 10 2006, 02:42 PM

The sociologist of religion's definition of an "angry ex" anything:


QUOTE
The apostate is a defector who is aligned with an oppositional coalition in an effort to broaden a dispute, and embraces public claims making activities to attack his or her former group. Unlike typical leave takers whose responses range from indifference to quiet disenchantment, the apostate assumes a vituperative or hostile posture and pursues a moral campaign to discredit the group.

Daniel Carson Johnson, “Apostates Who Never Were: The Social Construction of Absque Facto Apostate Narratives,” in The Politics of Religious Apostasy: The Role of Apostates in the Transformation of Religious Movements, ed. David G. Bromley (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1998), 109.


An official LDS definition:


QUOTE
Among the activities considered apostate to the Church include when members “(1) repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders; (2) persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after being corrected by their bishops or higher authority; or (3) continue to follow the teachings of apostate cults (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishops or higher authority” (General Handbook of Instructions, 1989, p. 10-3).

See, it doesn't matter if 'leave takers' (Juliann's current term since the problem with claiming all silent exmo's were defectors, accepting the moral responsibility for the failure of the relationship, and leaving in way that leaves the legitimacy of the group intact, became so apparent that not even she could wish it away) share the exact same opinions and beliefs about the LDS church as their vocal cousins, "apostates". They SHUT UP ABOUT IT. And that fact alone is what enables them to be the far preferred (in Juliann's eyes) "leave taker" versus "apostate". SHUTTING UP is the crucial factor.

Again, even if the words you are putting into Jullian's mouth are correct (they aren't), it still doesn't support your previous claim that: "The church doesn't really care what you think about the church, as long as you shut up about it." And, it certainly doesn't supoort your's and SB's claim that: the Church is telling ex-mormons to "shut up and sing".

made several pertinent comments:

Same thread

Sethbag Nov 12 2006, 11:00 AM

One thing that occurs to me with Juliann's quotes, and this has bothered me for some time with them, as this isn't the first time they've come up, is that they do indeed undermine a person who leaves a cult in their attempts to describe their experience. It literally is attempting to rob such a person of their voice, by suggesting that anything they say is just the ranting of someone with an agenda, an axe to grind, etc.

What's really interesting to me is that this was not directed at LDS apostates, but rather apostates in general, from a lot of different cults.

So, someone who leaves the Hare Krishnas as an apostate is somehow just being unreasonable, with some destructive agenda?

Someone who leaves Scientology as an apostate is just someone with an axe to grind, whose motives are a priori to be suspect?

Someone who leaves the Unification Church (ie: the Moonies) is automatically to have their exit story denigrated and suspected, because they obviously just left with an agenda?

What boggles my mind is that an LDS person believes that all of these churches/cults are in fact false, and that in a lot of cases cults can in fact be very destructive to peoples' lives. One would think that an LDS person would have sympathy with those who "see the light" and leave the Moonies or some other cult. But no, in an attempt to subvert the apostates from the LDS church by casting all of their exit stories under some pall of questionability and bad motives, she's subverting all of the apostates from cults she should actually think that people should apostatize from.

Juliann's response:

What boggles my mind is the presumptuousness in this statement! Why should it bother me if someone makes a choice to join the Moonies as opposed to the Catholics? Do they terrorize neighborhoods? They don't mow their lawns? What is it that would make you think that you can decide which group is good or bad for another person?

How odd that someone who believes in the "one true church" that ALONE has the power to perform saving ordinances ni the name of JC, and is a church heavily invested in proselytizing, would make this statement. I thought one of the primary purposes of the LDS church was to convert others.

Sethbag's next statement:

Sethbag Nov 12 2006, 12:30 PM

Juliann, you are differentiating between what you (or your sources) are calling leave-takers, and what you (or your sources) are calling apostates. These are two labels, used to describe an innumerable number of individuals. You are pigeon-holing anyone who left a religion into these two categories, and implying a lack of credibility, or untrustworthy motives, behind one of these two categories. Interestingly, the category being pilloried is the one category which presents anything like a threat to your chosen religion. Do you see anything like an intellectual conflict of interest here? And if the researchers who formulated the categorical descriptions you are citing were in fact backed by what can only be described as a vicious mind cult, can you not see how they themselves were in a conflict of interest, intellectually speaking?

You, nor they, have ever actually demonstrated by it is more trustworthy or credible, or desirable, to be a "leave-taker" as you (they) describe them, rather than an "apostate". Let's go back in time a little. It's a month before the Heaven's Gate bunch offed themselves to get to the great and spacious alien vessel behind the comet. One of the members realizes what's happening within that cult, how delusional it all is, and knows that their fellow members are planning harm to themselves in accordance with their beliefs. Is it more or less virtuous, or trustworthy, or credible, for this person to leave the cult and fade away, and go pick up their life somewhere else, and be quiet about it? Or for this person to trumpet what they know to write to the news organizations and "expose" the cult's leadership and beliefs? Or put it up on the web? Or write a book about it?

According to your definitions, that person should just fade away. Then they are a relatively benign "leave-taker". No harm, no foul.

I actually disagree with your hijacking of the term "apostate" as well. Most people understand the term to mean simply someone who has left their religion, party, cause, or what have you. In fact that explanation is paraphrased from one dictionary definition that I saw of the word. The common usage of "apostate" includes both the "leave-takers" and the "apostates" of your definitions. Your sources seem to be creating a jargon version of the common word and narrowing its definition, and then you seem to be taking this jargon version of the word and tossing it back into your normal conversations. I do not recognize this as a valid approach.

Again, I find it awfully convenient that the dividing line between apostates and leave-takers by your original sources happens to fall right on the line separating those who pose a threat to their particular religious foundation, from those who don't.

Juliann bickered with him over the term apostate, but ignored the larger, much more important points.

Which are:

1) per Juliann's model, exiters of any organization should always SHUT UP. This defies common sense and history. There are cases when groups are truly dangerous, to the members and the larger society. These exiters should SPEAK UP. The reason Juliann won't go there is because that leads to the unthinkable, for her: admitting that some LDS apostates are behaving ethically by speaking up against the chuch,

because they honestly believe the church is causing harm.

2) per Juliann's model, the only "bad exiters" are those who speak up. It is hardly a coincidence that it is the act of SPEAKING UP that threatens the group's legitimacy.

Again, shut up and sing!

Assuming your conclusion are a fair and accurate representation of Juliann's position (they are not), it still doesn't support your previous claim that: "The church doesn't really care what you think about the church, as long as you shut up about it." And, it certainly doesn't support your's and SB's claim that: the Church is telling ex-mormons to "shut up and sing". Juliann's drawing categorical distinctions between those ex-mo's who speak out and those who don't, does not a statement of preference by the Church make, nor can it in any reasonable way be interpretted as the Church telling ex-mo's to shut up and sing.

Care to try again?

Now, if you are interested in what real and valid evidence looks like for when individuals or groups are telling people to "shut up and sing", just look at SB's hypocritical response to me above. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-