Freedom?????s just another word for ?????nothing left to lose?????

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Sethbag
_Emeritus
Posts: 6855
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:52 am

Post by _Sethbag »

beastie wrote:After seeing several surprising confessions, over the years, by defenders of the faith regarding their minimal or nonexistent level of "real life" church activity, I have come to believe that a significant percentage of online defenders of the faith are either inactive or nominally active, or they have struggled with issues that would prevent them from obtaining temple recommends. ... I wonder if they think by posting in defense of the church they're earning heavenly brownie points that compensate for their other problems.

I've been thinking this for some time now, especially in cases like Ray A. I think it's a very real possibility that these guys do the whole Defender of the Faith thing as a way of "making up" for their other in-the-eyes-of-the-church deficiencies. I think it's a big-time compensation thing - hey, I may not have gone to church very often, and [insert some collection of LDS sins here], but I stood up for the church and defended it against the forces of Satan. That's gotta count for something.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
_wenglund
_Emeritus
Posts: 4947
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:25 pm

Post by _wenglund »

Sethbag wrote:
beastie wrote:After seeing several surprising confessions, over the years, by defenders of the faith regarding their minimal or nonexistent level of "real life" church activity, I have come to believe that a significant percentage of online defenders of the faith are either inactive or nominally active, or they have struggled with issues that would prevent them from obtaining temple recommends. ... I wonder if they think by posting in defense of the church they're earning heavenly brownie points that compensate for their other problems.

I've been thinking this for some time now, especially in cases like Ray A. I think it's a very real possibility that these guys do the whole Defender of the Faith thing as a way of "making up" for their other in-the-eyes-of-the-church deficiencies. I think it's a big-time compensation thing - hey, I may not have gone to church very often, and [insert some collection of LDS sins here], but I stood up for the church and defended it against the forces of Satan. That's gotta count for something.


Propagandizing 101: Addendum to the previous lesson.

Step Five: Pretend to legitimacy by having a fellow propagandist baselessly and presumptuously reiterate the layered, baseless conjectures even after the smear tactic has been exposed and the time for the stated exit strategy elapsed. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Post by _Mister Scratch »

The Nehor wrote:
Mercury wrote:
The Nehor wrote:
beastie wrote:There is one part of Will's prank that I find very believable - that he's not that active in the church. After seeing several surprising confessions, over the years, by defenders of the faith regarding their minimal or nonexistent level of "real life" church activity, I have come to believe that a significant percentage of online defenders of the faith are either inactive or nominally active, or they have struggled with issues that would prevent them from obtaining temple recommends. Maybe something serious, like an affair, or WoW infractions, or something questionable like addiction to internet porn and/or masturbation. I wonder if they think by posting in defense of the church they're earning heavenly brownie points that compensate for their other problems. Or do they mentally count this as a form of "missionary work" so they can put a little check in that To Do column?


I'm still trying to figure out why I'm here.


You desire to involve yourself somewhat vicariously with rejection of a religion you still can't let go of even though you know its based on lies and emotional manipulation. Simple enough.


Taken to apply to all here, does this mean that you desire to involve yourself somewhat with a religion you pretend to have let go of because of lingering fears and/or doubts about your decision to leave?


The reason Nehor is here is because he is one of my two Malevolent Stalkers (TM). Coggins is the other one.
_The Nehor
_Emeritus
Posts: 11832
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:05 am

Post by _The Nehor »

Mister Scratch wrote:The reason Nehor is here is because he is one of my two Malevolent Stalkers (TM). Coggins is the other one.


I was sure your relationship to me was more like a creepy perverted uncle but whatever works.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Post by _Mister Scratch »

The Nehor wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:The reason Nehor is here is because he is one of my two Malevolent Stalkers (TM). Coggins is the other one.


I was sure your relationship to me was more like a creepy perverted uncle but whatever works.


Well, this rather proves my point, doesn't it, my dear Malevolent Stalker #1 (TM). I submit a post, and whaddya know! here you are to comment, and to cast personal judgment on someone you've never met!
_The Dude
_Emeritus
Posts: 2976
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:16 am

Post by _The Dude »

Sethbag wrote:
beastie wrote:After seeing several surprising confessions, over the years, by defenders of the faith regarding their minimal or nonexistent level of "real life" church activity, I have come to believe that a significant percentage of online defenders of the faith are either inactive or nominally active, or they have struggled with issues that would prevent them from obtaining temple recommends. ... I wonder if they think by posting in defense of the church they're earning heavenly brownie points that compensate for their other problems.

I've been thinking this for some time now, especially in cases like Ray A. I think it's a very real possibility that these guys do the whole Defender of the Faith thing as a way of "making up" for their other in-the-eyes-of-the-church deficiencies. I think it's a big-time compensation thing - hey, I may not have gone to church very often, and [insert some collection of LDS sins here], but I stood up for the church and defended it against the forces of Satan. That's gotta count for something.


We've all seen it. Apologists who say, "Sethbag says he left because he learned about church doctrine and history, but that's not the real reason. He left because he had a problem with masturbation, or he committed adultry... those are the real reasons behind his actions. The more he protests that it was about the facts, the more sure we are that it was about secret sins." Man I hate that. I know you do to.

But how is it any different to say RayA or Will Schryver defend the church, not because of their stated reasons, but to compensate for [insert some collection of LDS sins here]?

This is wrong, guys. I suggest you disavow this thinking before Pahoran or Selek gets wind of it.
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond
_The Nehor
_Emeritus
Posts: 11832
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:05 am

Post by _The Nehor »

Mister Scratch wrote:
The Nehor wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:The reason Nehor is here is because he is one of my two Malevolent Stalkers (TM). Coggins is the other one.


I was sure your relationship to me was more like a creepy perverted uncle but whatever works.


Well, this rather proves my point, doesn't it, my dear Malevolent Stalker #1 (TM). I submit a post, and whaddya know! here you are to comment, and to cast personal judgment on someone you've never met!


I feel no shame in making judgments about internet personalities who show too much interest in my sexual life. Most people I know don't.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

Beastie, are you saying Will and other online apologists will apostatize because they are guilty of some secret sin? Are you saying guilt is a basic motivation for them?

April fools.... right?

....right?


No, I actually don’t believe Will is going to apostatize at all. He already knows too much, and still retains faith, for me to think that knowledge is going to undermine his faith. He’s one I view as a True Believer. I do think he may have been truthful in stating he’s minimally active. Of course I may be wrong in that, and I’m not going to hold my breath on him honestly informing us of the reality, but I wouldn’t be surprised. The first time I saw it happen, years ago with some unremembered TBM on ZLMB, I was surprised. I don’t even remember how or when it finally came out, but one of the staunch defenders of the faith admitted to not being active. I thought that was strange – someone isn’t even active in the LDS church but yet is motivated enough to come on an internet message board and defend it ardently? What’s up with that?

As time went on, the same phenomenon would reveal itself from time to time. I don’t remember the names, nor am I willing to go on extensive searches to find these past conversations, so take it with a grain of salt if you will. But just look at our own little corner of the internet Mormon/exmormon world – we have coggins, who is marginally active and has problems with the WoW, and we had whyme, who, If I recall correctly, wasn’t active in the LDS church at all. And of course, we had Ray A, who wasn’t even on the rolls anymore. That’s a significant percentage of defenders of the faith on this board, where defenders of the faith are few and far between. And these are only the ones who, for whatever reason, were open about their inactivity. Now I’m sure the percentage would be less on a place like MAD that has appreciably more defenders of the faith in the first place. Perhaps inactive or troubled defenders of the faith, for some odd reason, are more likely to post on this board than other boards. However, as I already stated, I did see the same thing on ZLMB, although it’s been too long for me to remember specifics.

Now when I say a “significant percentage”, I don’t mean the majority of defenders of the faith. But I wouldn’t be surprised to see a number around 25-30%, and to me, that’s a significant percentage. These people are motivated enough to come on an internet board and defend the church, but aren’t motivated enough to be active or keep the church’s commandments. Again, what’s up with that?

I think it’s because coming on an internet board and arguing in defense of the faith is easier than being fully active or keeping all the commandments. Yet surely these people must feel that they’re doing something that would please God – defending his One True Church from the criticisms of evil apostates. So maybe, just maybe, God will look more kindly on them in the end.

I will admit that part of what prompted this musing on my part was that Will’s post reminded me of the rumor that went around ZLMB at one time regarding his possible inactivity as well. I have no idea if those rumors were founded or unfounded, but Will’s post reminded me of it. Perhaps the rumor was created by another April Fool’s joke. I really don’t know.

Seth:
I've been thinking this for some time now, especially in cases like Ray A. I think it's a very real possibility that these guys do the whole Defender of the Faith thing as a way of "making up" for their other in-the-eyes-of-the-church deficiencies. I think it's a big-time compensation thing - hey, I may not have gone to church very often, and [insert some collection of LDS sins here], but I stood up for the church and defended it against the forces of Satan. That's gotta count for something.


Yeah, that’s what I mean. Again, I’m not talking about even a majority of defenders of the faith, but I’ve seen it often enough that I consider it likely that a significant minority would fall into this category.

I’m just trying to figure out why someone who doesn’t believe in the LDS church enough to actually be active and live the commandments bothers to get online and defend the faith. Or they claim to believe it, but still can’t quite live up to it. We all know that’s got to cause stresses and guilt, particularly keeping in mind the “works” aspect of LDS theology in the first place.

Besides this particular idea, I do wonder if believers do this as some form of missionary work. When I was active, we were constantly pressured to do missionary work. Maybe that was just a phase, or maybe it was because we lived in “the mission field”. But I always felt guilty for not doing more missionary work, and for failing miserably the few times I got up the courage to even try. So I used to do more genealogical work and tell myself the LORD would also view that as a form of “missionary work” and maybe he would forgive me for falling down on the job otherwise. I’m betting that some defenders of the faith view their participation on internet boards as a form of missionary work, and hope that will compensate for failing in that regard in real life (as the vast majority of Mormons do).


dude:
We've all seen it. Apologists who say, "Sethbag says he left because he learned about church doctrine and history, but that's not the real reason. He left because he had a problem with masturbation, or he committed adultry... those are the real reasons behind his actions. The more he protests that it was about the facts, the more sure we are that it was about secret sins." Man I hate that. I know you do to.

But how is it any different to say RayA or Will Schryver defend the church, not because of their stated reasons, but to compensate for [insert some collection of LDS sins here]?

This is wrong, guys. I suggest you disavow this thinking before Pahoran or Selek gets wind of it.


I want to be clear. I am NOT talking about the majority of apologists. I am wondering why people who can't even bothered to be fully active in the LDS church or follow its main guidelines come on to internet boards and play the part of Ardent Defender of the Faith.

I also want to clarify I'm not talking about some "secret sin". I'm talking about people who have admitted that they are not fully active or have problems with some church commandment. I am wondering if being a super TBM on an internet board makes them feel less guilty for their real life perceived inadequacies.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Post by _Mister Scratch »

The Nehor wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:
The Nehor wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:The reason Nehor is here is because he is one of my two Malevolent Stalkers (TM). Coggins is the other one.


I was sure your relationship to me was more like a creepy perverted uncle but whatever works.


Well, this rather proves my point, doesn't it, my dear Malevolent Stalker #1 (TM). I submit a post, and whaddya know! here you are to comment, and to cast personal judgment on someone you've never met!


I feel no shame in making judgments about internet personalities who show too much interest in my sexual life. Most people I know don't.


Malevolent Stalker #1 (TM),

You will be hard-pressed to demonstrate that I've "show[n] ... interest" in your sexual life. At best, you'll find some instances where I have responded to comments made by Mercury and/or Polygamy Porter. You yourself once observed that you "sit around masturbating all day," did you not? Now, you may be embarrassed at having said that, but that's your problem. Elsewhere, you suggested that I am a homosexual:

Nehor wrote:I don't know what scares me more? That I might have the look of a "compulsive masturbator" or that you and Merc have studied this enough that you both think you know what it looks like? The latter might cause my gaydar to go off.


It appears that you've once again been hamstrung by your own hypocrisy, my dear Malevolent Stalker #1 (TM).
_Roger Morrison
_Emeritus
Posts: 1831
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:13 am

Post by _Roger Morrison »

Nehor asked:
Taken to apply to all here, does this mean that you desire to involve yourself somewhat with a religion you pretend to have let go of because of lingering fears and/or doubts about your decision to leave?



As one of "all here", I realize i have a desire to involve 'myself' with a religion that i have rejected because it has exposed itself to be not what i originally thought it to be. Some call that religion fraudulent. Probably so. For that reason my "fears" are that others migh,t in their state of belief in untruth and harmful practices will bring damage to themselves, and worse to others.

I have no remaining doubts or fears attached to my decision to "leave" LDSism. I hope 'Will' feels the same... Don't forget to vote April 5 :-) Roger
Post Reply