The anger of exmos...

[_rcrocket]

But, I am one of the very very very few true believers on this Board, and I am routinely treated spitefully and even threatened at times. I have received threats that my employer will be informed of my views, and in the case of Mr. Scratch a few days ago, my stake president. Is it so hard to see that boorish behavior and ill manners are as prevalent here, and perhaps much more so, than the board you all obsess over?

rcrocket

Sorry to hear this Bob, but ya know you were warned about posting on the internet using your real name.

Yes, like the young woman warned against jogging on the public river path. Her fault, I suppose, when she is attacked.

rcrocket

[_Mister Scratch]

But, I am one of the very very very few true believers on this Board, and I am routinely treated spitefully and even threatened at times. I have received threats that my employer will be informed of my views, and in the case of Mr. Scratch a few days ago, my stake president. Is it so hard to see that boorish behavior and ill manners are as prevalent here, and perhaps much more so, than the board you all obsess over?

rcrocket

Sorry to hear this Bob, but ya know you were warned about posting on the internet using your real name.

Yes, like the young woman warned against jogging on the public river path. Her fault, I suppose, when she is attacked.

rcrocket

Right. And I suppose she is a "coward" if she carries mace for protection, eh, Bob?

[_mormonmistress]

The grief cycle is well documented and was introduced by Kübler-Ross in 1969. She claimed these steps do not necessarily come in order, nor are they all experienced by all people, though she stated a person will always experience at least two. She applied these stages to any form of catastrophic personal loss.

Denial: The initial stage: "It can't be happening."
Anger: "Why ME? It's not fair!" (either referring to God, oneself, or anybody perceived, rightly or wrongly, as "responsible" - in this case, the Church)
Bargaining: "Just let me live to see my child(ren) graduate."
Depression: "I'm so sad, why bother with anything?"
Acceptance: "It's going to be OK."

Losing faith in the church can surely be viewed as a catastrophic personal loss. Ex-mo's who are angry are just stuck at this second stage of grief. Give them time and the happiness and acceptance will come. By then, they will probably stop posting on these type of forums. They will have accepted their loss and moved on.

[_rcrocket]

But, I am one of the very very very few true believers on this Board, and I am routinely treated spitefully and even threatened at times. I have received threats that my employer will be informed of my views, and in the case of Mr. Scratch a few days ago, my stake president. Is it so hard to see that boorish behavior and ill manners are as prevalent here, and perhaps much more so, than the board you all obsess over?

rcrocket

Sorry to hear this Bob, but ya know you were warned about posting on the internet using your real name.

Yes, like the young woman warned against jogging on the public river path. Her fault, I suppose, when she is attacked.

rcrocket

Right. And I suppose she is a "coward" if she carries mace for protection, eh, Bob?

No, I wouldn't say that. The coward is the one who attacks her.

[_Mister Scratch]

Right. And I suppose she is a "coward" if she carries mace for protection, eh, Bob?

No, I wouldn't say that. The coward is the one who attacks her.

What if she dressed up like a man? Would she be a coward then?

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

I just have to wonder about the folks who are perceiving all this alleged anger. Just goes to show, we will always see what we look for.

I can't say I've ever seen Why Me expressing anger of his own, but he must be brimming over with it deep down if that's the only thing he can see from ex-mormons/critics.

I have a unique history which I have shared on a thread. I don't get angry about this Mormon thing. And angry exmos don't get me angry either even though they can say some doozies about me. What should I get angry about. I have two beautiful Mormon children and I have a job. My kids are fine and healthy and I gravitate to the catholic faith and to the Mormon faith, with a slant toward catholicism.

I have been inactive for so long that anger would never play a part and this is where many exmos and I differ, and this was brought out to me when I was on the postmorg site. The claim: Why me you were never a TBM and you can't understand our anger was brought out several times when I posted there.

Can you point me to that threat? I would like to read it and I've been too busy lately to read everything.

I still find it strange when folks (usually TBMs but occasionally inactives) read these boards and the only thing they find worth commenting on is ex-mo anger. I see anger too, but I also see where ex-mo's have evolved more complete, centered and self-actualized personalities.

Why would someone in your position (as far as I understand it, anyway) would react to ex-mormons by criticizing the prevailing anger you perceive in them? Maybe because you are still, after however many years, heavily invested and identified in Mormonism and so you feel personally insulted (or feel your children to be insulted) by any expression of disbelief or unacceptance of the religion by ex-mormons? Does your belief in Mormonism cause guilt, which you project toward angry ex-mormons in an attempt to alleviate, and do you accept the Mormon belief that negative feelings against the church are inherently wrong? Could the most part of the guilt and anger you feel be repressed to where you don't feel it consciously to any significant degree?

I've been out of the church for a long time as well, and I don't feel angy consciously either, but here I am on this board for some reason. I think it's a good idea for us all to look within to udnerstand our true agendas, because when all is said and done, the question of whether Mormonism is true is irrelevant to salvation, while learning to choose love over fear has everything to do with salvation.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Right. And I suppose she is a "coward" if she carries mace for protection, eh, Bob?

No, I wouldn't say that. The coward is the one who attacks her.

What if she dressed up like a man? Would she be a coward then?

The question of anonymity on these boards isn't simply a matter of courage vs. cowardice. It's largely a personality thing. Some people like to get their names out there and be recognized, they like attention. There's nothing wrong with that. Other people don't have so much desire to draw attention to themselves. There's nothing wrong with that either. There are both kinds of people on both sides of the Mormon issue. Personal safety is an important factor, and should be a factor even for the big egos out there, especially for women on the internet, and there is nothing wrong with protecting identities for that reason either.

Crockett, your black and white thinking on this issue is silly and tiresome. You are an attorney, you have a big ego, you post under your name. Nothing so hard to understand about that. It doesn't make you a hero, or better than anyone else, so why not drop it? All you are really doing is showing your Mormon naivette about human nature.

[_rcrocket]

Right. And I suppose she is a "coward" if she carries mace for protection, eh, Bob?

No, I wouldn't say that. The coward is the one who attacks her.

What if she dressed up like a man? Would she be a coward then?

Yes, Ms. Scratch. You hit the nail on the head.

[_rcrocket]

Right. And I suppose she is a "coward" if she carries mace for protection, eh, Bob?

No, I wouldn't say that. The coward is the one who attacks her.

What if she dressed up like a man? Would she be a coward then?

The question of anonymity on these boards isn't simply a matter of courage vs. cowardice. It's largely a personality thing. Some people like to get their names out there and be recognized, they like attention. There's nothing wrong with that. Other people don't have so much desire to draw attention to themselves. There's nothing wrong with that either. There are both kinds of people on both sides of the Mormon issue. Personal safety is an important factor, and should be a factor even for the big egos out there, especially for women on the internet, and there is nothing wrong with protecting identities for that reason either.

Crockett, your black and white thinking on this issue is silly and tiresome. You are an attorney, you have a big ego, you post under your name. Nothing so hard to understand about that. It doesn't make you a hero, or better than anyone else, so why not drop it? All you are really doing is showing your Mormon naivette about human nature.

You have completely blown by my post; you charged me with anger and accusing others of anger. I denied that. I am never angry and have never claimed that there is something wrong with ex Mormons being angry. But, you now return to the issue of anonymity. So ---

This month's issue of PC Magazine contains an extensive column on the problems of anonymity in the internet, and how it fosters personal harm and irresponsibility. This isn't a question of my profession as an attorney, or whether I have a big ego or small ego. I simply maintain that those who are not anonymous, and I have named them, tend to act on the internet in a manner consistent with the rest of their life. It is a matter of courage and hypocrisy (or lack thereof) That's it, really.

rcrocket

[_Pokatator]

The grief cycle is well documented and was introduced by Kübler-Ross in 1969. She claimed these steps do not necessarily come in order, nor are they all experienced by all people, though she stated a person will always experience at least two. She applied these stages to any form of catastrophic personal loss.

Denial: The initial stage: "It can't be happening."
Anger: "Why ME? It's not fair!" (either referring to God, oneself, or anybody perceived, rightly or wrongly, as "responsible" - in this case, the Church)
Bargaining: "Just let me live to see my child(ren) graduate."
Depression: "I'm so sad, why bother with anything?"
Acceptance: "It's going to be OK."

Losing faith in the church can surely be viewed as a catastrophic personal loss. Ex-mo's who are angry are just stuck at this second stage of grief. Give them time and the happiness and acceptance will come. By then, they will probably stop posting on these type of forums. They will have accepted their loss and moved on.

"why me" you are clearly identified in the second stage of grief, Anger. You are angry.