You've confused me with someone else, I'm afraid. I have never participated on the RfM board under any name. Indeed, there is so little in your post that approaches the factual that I despair of ever being able to set you straight on any of it, therefore I will refrain from making the effort. It is a very old story, almost entirely fictional, and frankly, I'm bored with it.
Isn't it a bit odd to proclaim you're not going to try to set me straight, will refrain from the effort, since it's almost "entirely fictional" and you're bored with it, and then proceed to provide a fairly lengthy attempt to set me straight?
"Almost entirely fictional"? Yes you corrected me on ONE detail - that you did not post on RFM. I accept that correction, I may have been confusing you with the mormonstories fellow. But your following comments make it clear you were - and perhaps continue - soliciting exmormon interviews. So the only detail I missed was the board. Which board was it? ZLMB?
As far as John is concerned, I quite like him. For a hard-core apostate, he's a pretty genuine guy. Not only that, but he is a rarity among the exmo crowd: he actually has a sense of humor, and has not yet completely lost his capacity to detect irony and sarcasm. It seems like that is usually the first thing to go, but John is clinging resolutely to his -- for which he is to be commended.
Oh, I actually thought my first response to your query for questions was quite humorous. Didn't you? I also think that the Super Duper Countenance Detector was quite funny, too.
But in which part were you using "irony and sarcasm"? Was it this part?
Indeed, I am convinced that many of them continue to lurk in the foyers of our chapels and on the back rows of Priesthood and Relief Society meetings with the express purpose of working from within to sow seeds of doubt; a fifth column dedicated to eroding faith and testimony in as subtle a fashion as possible.
This part?
When and if I can identify them in my stake, I will work to expose, confront, and discredit them in every way possible.Some may feel that we should continue to embrace and attempt to fellowship everyone who desires to enter our chapels and classrooms. I generally agree with that approach, but I have come to recognize certain important exceptions to that general rule. They are a new player on the stage; a new threat to be recognized: The passive-aggressive apostate, epitomized by so many who post on this board and similar places in cyberspace, is an enemy to the Church that needs to be identified and combated with all of the resources we can bring to bear on the malignancy they constitute.
Or perhaps this part?
I must admit that my ability to truly pity the apostate is deficient. I confess I more often than not succumb to a sense of satisfaction that one day they will suffer tremendously in mind and spirit for having made the choices that led them to abandon their faith and fight against God and His people. Of course, then I am moved to pray for forgiveness and ask that I be granted the capacity to mourn for the lost souls. I’m hoping that, in time, my capacity for charity, even for the apostate, will be augmented.
As far as seeing darkness in people is concerned . . . well, I sometimes regret the gift of discernment with which I have been blessed. But I haven’t sought to have it taken from me, either. I have found it a very useful gift more often than not. Especially when it comes to conversing with angry apostates who labor mightily to conceal their rage beneath a patina of faux victimhood.
Or this reply to John?
Hardly a simpleton. Simply a motivated disbeliever. I understand perfectly the reasons for the course you have taken. You’ve left many hints during your thousands of posts. You looked for and finally found all the justifications you desired. It’s an old story. It’s been going on for millenia now. And frankly, as I indicated above in my response to Tchild2, I find it very difficult to arouse within myself any pity for you. Your choices are your own. You’ve been granted the privilege to make them. But don’t try to play the victim in this play. You’re the actor. You’ve acted. Stop trying to assume the role of the acted upon: ”… I’m going to lose my wife and family because …” Blah, blah, blah. As LOAP noted above, there are costs associated with your choices. By all indications, your wife and family are not going to join you on your chosen path. So face the consequences of your choices with some measure of manliness. You’re certain that it’s all a fraud. You’re going to have to deal with the inevitable outcome of your “certainty.”
I can’t empathize with your disbelief because, quite simply, I have a certain knowledge that you’re mistaken. I understand that you have gotten beyond the point of no return when it comes to these things. You’re going to follow this path to its logical conclusion. So be it. I’m not going to attempt to persuade you, or anyone else like you, that you’re making a big mistake. I’m quite willing to permit you to become the object of the proverb:
2 Peter 2
20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.
Or this one?
Indeed, I was quite emphatic about the specific type of person I think should be identified and rooted out our congregations: the hard-core apostates like John who feign victimhood and masquerade behind a smokescreen of seemingly measured tones and breathy soft speech as they methodically work to undermine the faith and beliefs of loyal Latter-day Saints.
Please, please enlighten me and let me know which of these statements were meant as a "funny". You know, tongue-in-cheek. Sarcastic. Ironic. Now, I don't know how far you could throw me, but I don't think you will soon be called upon to "trust" me to any extent. I haven't asked you if you'd like to be interviewed for any film on people who have left the church, have I? Would you like to be? It could probably be arranged. I would even give you the same guarantee I gave to Dan Vogel and everyone else I have ever talked to: I would sign a contract with you such that I could not use your image or words without your consent, and that consent would not be requested until after you had viewed the final edit of your interview segments; if you then felt uncomfortable in any way, I would forward the original tapes to you to dispose with as you wish. Not only that, if you even felt uncomfortable at the conclusion of the interview, I would leave the original tape(s) with you and not bother you further.
Well, apparently my memory was pretty accurate, save the RFM detail. Yes, you have been soliciting exmormon interviews.
You see, beastie dear, no matter what my inclinations might be when it comes to my belief in Mormonism, it would never serve my purpose to distort what you or anyone else says about the topic. To the contrary, my interest is in having people like you, or Dan, or John, or anyone else, say exactly what they want to say.
I don't believe that faithful LDS can survive in a world where the arguments advanced by critics of the church are suppressed or misrepresented. I believe they must, as I have done, confront the arguments head on and determine whether or not their faith is sufficient to survive the contest. I suppose many might continue to successfully shelter themselves completely from the "storm" of critical arguments, but the tide of events will certainly overtake their children. Sooner or later, the questions must be faced. I say better now than later.
So, yes, my dear message board antagonist, I continue to interview people who have become alienated from the church. It is a fascinating study. My empathy for them has grown in many ways, even if I have not been "converted" to their conclusions. I confess that I suffer from a shameful predilection for polemics when it comes to these online forums. It must be some evolutionary remnant that makes my blood rise for the "fight". That, and an inexplicable delight I have felt since childhood to take a stick to hornet nests and then run. Condemn me for that, but don't concoct false pretenses to justify my condemnation. And don't confuse the fun I have on message boards with the person I am when disconnected from my often-caustic keyboard alter-ego.
I think John has come to understand me a little better than most. And I think he will survive having lunch with me. I hope you're not too disappointed when he returns and reports that I'm not even half the monster you believe me to be. But if it makes you feel better, you can imagine that I'll be wearing a hidden microphone and that John's stake president will be listening in on the other end.
Another admission that verifies the gist of my summary. You were posting as "provis" in a very antagonistic and polemic fashion while simultaneously presenting an "empathetic" face towards exmormons in an attempt to obtain a video-taped interview with them.
I'm quite sure you're a very nice fellow in real life. I'm equally sure almost every poster, with minor exceptions, on any of these boards is equally pleasant in real life. But let's not pretend that our internet board "alter-egos" bear no relationship to our real life thoughts and attitudes.
Like I said, John is a great guy, kind and generous. That's why it's always particularly galling to see him singled out so often by the MADs. But that is exactly why they single him out - and why YOU singled him out. He's soft spoken and rational, which, If I recall correctly, makes him even more threatening in your view.
If the church's defenses were really that strong, how could these people be a threat? They should be
easily refuted.