Question for ex-mo's...are you untrustworthy?

[_rcrocket]

2) Judaism was not a religion created in the past two hundred years in the United States by a young man who at age 14 professed to have been visited by an angel and deity, and was involved in treasure seeking. Judaism is historically as much a race as it is a religion.

Oh, right. I guess that justifies the turd-throwing in the stake center while people are in there worshiping. I'll bet your anonymous self is a member in apparent good standing. Am I right?

[_Yoda]

I mean, isn't that what you are doing here? Denigrating the faith of somebody else? Mocking? Piling on?

No, we're merely discussing.

Oh, come on. This board is filled with mocking and often vulgar statements about the faith of many. How is this site any different than one devoted to Antisemitism? I mean, my own Jewish friends who are aware of the large anti-Mormon internet community remark on the fact that sites like yours are no different in terms of the toleration of another's sacred beliefs than sites devoted to antisemitism and denial of the Holocaust. You deny and mock the faith of so many who sacrificed their lives, property, possessions and families to attempt to create a Zion in America.

Sorry, Bob, but I don't consider this an Anti-Mormon site. Now, RfM...yes. But not MDB.

I'll admit that there are some here who I would consider "anti-Mormon", but certainly not everyone who posts here.

[_the road to hana]

2) Judaism was not a religion created in the past two hundred years in the United States by a young man who at age 14 professed to have been visited by an angel and deity, and was involved in treasure seeking. Judaism is historically as much a race as it is a religion.

Oh, right. I guess that justifies the turd-throwing in the stake center while people are in there worshiping. I'll bet your anonymous self is a member in apparent good standing. Am I right?

Absolutely not. I have attended occasionally with LDS family members and friends in the years since I left the LDS Church, but I am no more a member of the LDS Church than you are a resident of the state of Utah, or a student of BYU. It's something that can be used to accurately describe me in the very much past tense, but not the present.

[_guy sajer]

Another thing... what about garments.

My understanding that is if one is a former member they are asked NOT to keep the promise/covenant to wear them?

So, what,do the brethren get to decide what covenants former members must or must not keep to be considered trustworthy after one leaves the church?

When do the "brethren" decide that former members are not to be considered trustworthy? Where can I read that? I'm sure Brigham Young had his moments on this topic, but anything in the past 100 years?

This "brother" thinks that it really matters not to me or my "brethren" whether you want to sing to the high sun the contents of the endowment. A portion was published by Orson Pratt in the Seer, an official Church organ in Washington D.C. (later disavowed when Pratt put some stuff in there about the nature of God which Young did not like), and the rest was published in many exposes since. I am not aware of a single instance in which we are told to "distrust" former members of the church.

I think that some former members are really rather foolish -- those who want to come back every day to throw turds on the roof of the local stake center while there are Scout activities and Relief Society humanitarian activities, as well as worship services going on. I mean, isn't that what you are doing here? Denigrating the faith of somebody else? Mocking? Piling on?

Suppose you went over to an anti-Semitic site (http://zionofascism.wordpress.com/, http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=422038) and piled on with mocking statements of the Jewish faith. How is that any different than what you are doing?

People who hold silly or otherwise questionable beliefs ought not have the expectation of freedom from criticism. This is particularly the case when these belief create profound, or potentially profound, consequences for others.

Religious beliefs are ideas; ideas with demonstrable consequences. Why the hell should we exempt them from criticism?

People are emotionally attached to all sorts of bogus ideas. I don't see any reason to treat religious ideas favorably.

[_the road to hana]

Oh, right. I guess that justifies the turd-throwing in the stake center while people are in there worshiping.

Are you citing an actual example of someone throwing fecal matter onto a roof of an LDS meetinghouse? I can't actually imagine a situation where I believe throwing feces onto anyone's roof is appropriate.

If you're speaking only metaphorically, you have to deal with the turds thrown by members and leaders of your own faith. It seems to me that the only difference between those turds and any other is that Mormon turds come wrapped in ribbon, neatly packaged as something else like "families are forever" or "Christ visited the Americas" or "men can become gods."

I'd have chosen to use the word "grenade," but it can be turds if you prefer.

[_beastie]

Oh, come on. This board is filled with mocking and often vulgar statements about the faith of many. How is this site any different than one devoted to Antisemitism? I mean, my own Jewish friends who are aware of the large anti-Mormon internet community remark on the fact that sites like yours are no different in terms of the toleration of another's sacred beliefs than sites devoted to antisemitism and denial of the Holocaust. You deny and mock the faith of so many who sacrificed their lives, property, possessions and families to attempt to create a Zion in America.

Tell me, crocket, are sites that are dedicated to criticizing, "denying and mocking", scientologists, moonies, radical islam, or, in the past, Branch Davidians or the People's Temple also "no different in terms of the toleration of another's sared beliefs than sites devoted to antisemitism and the denial of the Holocaust"?

Why do religionists imagine that their beliefs demand tolerance and even respect due to nothing more than the fact that the beliefs are religious in origin? Is there any other type of belief that people are so arrogant about as to demand instant - unearned - tolerance and respect?

Next time why don't you show your Jewish friends some of the brethren's teachings about apostates from the Mormon faith. Will you all still cry for "tolerance" in that case?

[_beastie]

Yes I have read the whole thread. Perhaps you can provide support for your theory that the "brethren" don't think such persons are trustworthy. I'll grant you Brigham Young. Anybody else in the past 100 years?

Do we really have to go through this yet again???

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... New Testament+bigotry

Church leaders consistently teach that the cause of apostasy are: pride, laziness, desire to sin, being led astray by satan... none of which are exactly "trustworthy" states.

[_truth dancer]

Did you read the OP? This whole thread is a discussion on whether or not former members are trustworthy or not. I'm glad you do not think they are.

Yes I have read the whole thread. Perhaps you can provide support for your theory that the "brethren" don't think such persons are trustworthy. I'll grant you Brigham Young. Anybody else in the past 100 years?

Bold mine.


I have no idea where you get the idea that I have a theory that the "brethren" think former believers are untrustworthy. Perhaps YOU can show me where I said or suggested or insinuated such a thing?

You are either confusing me with someone else or are just making stuff up... not sure which.


~dancer~

[_rcrocket]

Oh, come on. This board is filled with mocking and often vulgar statements about the faith of many. How is this site any different than one devoted to Antisemitism? I mean, my own Jewish friends who are aware of the large anti-Mormon internet community remark on the fact that sites like yours are no different in terms of the toleration of another's sacred beliefs than sites devoted to antisemitism and denial of the Holocaust. You deny and mock the faith of so many who sacrificed their lives, property, possessions and families to attempt to create a Zion in America.

Tell me, crocket, are sites that are dedicated to criticizing, "denying and mocking", scientologists, moonies, radical islam, or, in the past, Branch Davidians or the People's Temple also "no different in terms of the toleration of another's sared beliefs than sites devoted to antisemitism and the denial of the Holocaust"?

Why do religionists imagine that their beliefs demand tolerance and even respect due to nothing more than the fact that the beliefs are religious in origin? Is there any other type of belief that people are so arrogant about as to demand instant - unearned - tolerance and respect?

Next time why don't you show your Jewish friends some of the brethren's teachings about apostates from the Mormon faith. Will you all still cry for "tolerance" in that case?

You are exempt from my suggestion that tolerance is an appropriate behavior for ex-Mormons. I don't think tolerance, bonhomme and good will were ever in your nature, either before and after your departure from the Church and your marriage.

[_rcrocket]

I have no idea where you get the idea that I have a theory that the "brethren" think former believers are untrustworthy. Perhaps YOU can show me where I said or suggested or insinuated such a thing?

You are either confusing me with someone else or are just making stuff up... not sure which.

So, what, do the brethren get to decide what covenants former members must or must not keep to be considered trustworthy after one leaves the church?

Sorry; I thought you made this statement and I was just asking for any references to possibly support this.