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?
I quoted Juliann, Wade, I didn't draw my own conclusions. Unless you want to pretend that Juliann and the church think being an apostate is morally equivalent to being a "leave taker", you have no argument.
The church will actively excommunicate members who have lost faith who are vocal in their criticism of the church. They will not actively excommunicate members who have also lost faith but keep quiet about it, except perhaps to their bishop or family. Do you actually dispute this?
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?
I quoted Juliann, Wade, I didn't draw my own conclusions. Unless you want to pretend that Juliann and the church think being an apostate is morally equivalent to being a "leave taker", you have no argument.
Your confused. I am not making an argument. I am simply challenging yours, and finding it entirely wanting. Do you understand the difference?
The church will actively excommunicate members who have lost faith who are vocal in their criticism of the church. They will not actively excommunicate members who have also lost faith but keep quiet about it, except perhaps to their bishop or family. Do you actually dispute this?
Whether that is the case or not, it is irrelevant. Your question above pertains to members, whereas your claim pertains to ex-members. Do you understand the difference?
There is an argument inherent in your challenge. Your resistance to admitting that is due to the fact that you likely recognize you are not capable of providing support for your assertion.
Yes, I'm talking about the church taking action against MEMBERS, who then become EXMEMBERS, but since the church has no authority to take action against EXmembers, this is the only way we can judge the church's differentiation between people who long longer believe the church is true, but one group speaks up, and the other shuts up. One group they view as "bad" enough to kick out, the other they will just turn a blind eye to. Explain why.
Or perhaps you can provide documentation from the church that differentiates between "leave takers" and "apostates", and demonstrate how the church views them both as equivalent.
beastie wrote:There is an argument inherent in your challenge. Your resistance to admitting that is due to the fact that you likely recognize you are not capable of providing support for your assertion.
Yes, I'm talking about the church taking action against MEMBERS, who then become EXMEMBERS, but since the church has no authority to take action against EXmembers, this is the only way we can judge the church's differentiation between people who long longer believe the church is true, but one group speaks up, and the other shuts up. One group they view as "bad" enough to kick out, the other they will just turn a blind eye to. Explain why.
Or perhaps you can provide documentation from the church that differentiates between "leave takers" and "apostates", and demonstrate how the church views them both as equivalent.
The bolded portion of your statement above fatally undermines SB's claim that: "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."
See if you can figure out how. (Hint: I provided bolding in SB's statement as well to make it easier for you to put 1 and -1 together to get 0 ).
beastie wrote:There is an argument inherent in your challenge. Your resistance to admitting that is due to the fact that you likely recognize you are not capable of providing support for your assertion.
Yes, I'm talking about the church taking action against MEMBERS, who then become EXMEMBERS, but since the church has no authority to take action against EXmembers, this is the only way we can judge the church's differentiation between people who long longer believe the church is true, but one group speaks up, and the other shuts up. One group they view as "bad" enough to kick out, the other they will just turn a blind eye to. Explain why.
Or perhaps you can provide documentation from the church that differentiates between "leave takers" and "apostates", and demonstrate how the church views them both as equivalent.
The bolded portion of your statement above fatally undermines SB's claim that: "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."
See if you can figure out how. (Hint: I provided bolding in SB's statement as well to make it easier for you to put 1 and -1 together to get 0 ).
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
You know, Wade, this is getting embarrassing. We're not talking about the church's power to take action against anyone. We're talking about Juliann et al. invalidating the experiences and feelings of lots of exMormons because they won't shut up. It's that very refusal to just quietly leave that, in numerous FAIR discussions, makes exmormons insincere and part of a community that feeds off its own discontent. In other words, you can be dismissed as a bitter "career" apostate if you don't shut up and go quietly.
beastie wrote:There is an argument inherent in your challenge. Your resistance to admitting that is due to the fact that you likely recognize you are not capable of providing support for your assertion.
Yes, I'm talking about the church taking action against MEMBERS, who then become EXMEMBERS, but since the church has no authority to take action against EXmembers, this is the only way we can judge the church's differentiation between people who long longer believe the church is true, but one group speaks up, and the other shuts up. One group they view as "bad" enough to kick out, the other they will just turn a blind eye to. Explain why.
Or perhaps you can provide documentation from the church that differentiates between "leave takers" and "apostates", and demonstrate how the church views them both as equivalent.
The bolded portion of your statement above fatally undermines SB's claim that: "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."
See if you can figure out how. (Hint: I provided bolding in SB's statement as well to make it easier for you to put 1 and -1 together to get 0 ).
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
You know, Wade, this is getting embarrassing. We're not talking about the church's power to take action against anyone. We're talking about Juliann et al. invalidating the experiences and feelings of lots of exMormons because they won't shut up. It's that very refusal to just quietly leave that, in numerous FAIR discussions, makes exmormons insincere and part of a community that feeds off its own discontent. In other words, you can be dismissed as a bitter "career" apostate if you don't shut up and go quietly.
Yes, it is getting embarrassing. If what you say is correct, then not only did SB & Beastie poorly communicate this sentiment, but in the process of feeling sorry for yourselves about being invalidated, you all are ironically invalidating Juliann et al.'s experiences and feelings.