My Work Here is Done

[_Darth J]

It is relevant because you claim that apologetics is a response to violence.

Go read what I said. I said violence among other acts of villainy and hate. You cannot single out one piece of apologetic and apply it to whatever you choose.

You are still lumping violence in there, so you are still claiming that Mormon apologetics is a deterrent to (or "contests" against) violence. In what way has Mormon apologetics contested against/deterred/had any effect whatsoever on violence against Mormons?

The premise of the article is showing the plausibility that 1 Nephi is an ancient Hebrew text.

Okay... you can read too, great. What's your point?

That it is an apologetic piece, because it is trying to establish the plausibility that Nephi really existed circa 600 B.C. and was writing things consistent with ancient Hebrew culture.

Of course I am contributing to the hate. Why, just this morning I tarred and feathered the missionaries as I saw them out walking around.

If you lived near Joseph Smith in the 1830s, would you participate in the mobs?

Absolutely! Every single person who has disputed the faith-promoting narrative is a vicious sociopath, so it stands to reason that I would have led the charge against Joseph Smith, after I had sated myself in drinking the blood of Mormon women and children.

I don't care how you defend yourselves, but what you are defending is not LDS doctrine, but bastardized pseudo-Mormonism.

You've been out of the church way too long to lecture me on what my church teaches. Are you sure you were ever a member?

As it turns out, it is my church, too, as I am one of the 14 million (or whatever it is) members that the Church purports to have. I'm also pretty sure that being inactive for a year and a half or so did not give me amnesia from my entire life prior to that point.

However, my invitation has been standing for a long time---and still stands---for you to demonstrate a single thing I have said on this board about the teachings of the Church that has not been accurate.

Your ongoing, unproven premise is that Mormon apologetics is equivalent to what the LDS Church itself teaches and does.

Really? Where did I say that? (hint: you won't find this answer in the 1974 Era).

Do you therefore concede that Mormon apologetic theories are distinguishable from official LDS doctrine?

And, as with my invitation for you to demonstrate any inaccuracy as to my statements about LDS doctrine, you also have your very own thread where I have invited you to show me a single example of where I have quote-mined anything.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=15581&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

I also can't quite figure out why you would be opposed to referring to an official publication of the Church from only 37 years ago as a source of official teachings, when the Book of Mormon purports to be approximately 2,600 years old, and the teachings of Joseph Smith are at least older than June 26, 1844.

However many it is, I would need some evidence that the persecution Joseph Smith claims to have experienced as a teenager really happened before I was ready to say it was over 180 years.

So, 179 years of violence and murder is okay by you, as long as it's against Mormons. If someone claims 180 years, you'll need to see some proof.

Are you serious?

Of course it's okay by me! As a vicious sociopath---the inevitable destiny of critics of the Church---my only complaint with the Nazis is that they killed Jews instead of Mormons.

But in addition to that, it would be proof that Joseph Smith was really persecuted for telling stories about the First Vision in 1820 that I would need before I would agree with your characterization as "180+ years."

Is the Book of Mormon a historical record of an ancient Semitic people? [ ] Yes [ ] No

Yup.

Unfalsfiable.

Joseph Smith had sex with farm animals before he sacrificed them to Satan.

Unfalsifiable.

[_asbestosman]

Joseph Smith [snipped] with farm animals before he sacrificed them to Satan.

Unfalsifiable.

I prayed and the spirit told me it wasn't true.

Falsified.
:)

[_Some Schmo]

Joseph Smith had sex with farm animals before he sacrificed them to Satan.

He did?!

No wonder he got horses confused with tapirs. He couldn't remember their names in the morning.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I just want to say again that I appreciate those individuals who've made an effort to stay in tune with the spirit of the OP. I see that some folks are coming out of the woodwork in order to continue to try and stir up antipathy. If these folks want to have a legitimate conversation and discussion, I'm all for it. If, on the other hand, they are interested only in their own brand of silliness--well, that's fine too, in a matter of speaking, but I can't say that I have much inclination towards engaging with or responding to these people.

I hope everyone has been having a splendid day during this glorious October season.

[_Equality]

I’m home sick today so have a bit of time to waste. If this is a confusing post in anyway, I will blame the severe stomach ailment I’ve suffered in the last four hours.

I don’t pretend to understand everything that Scratch has said and done over the past six years. There have been times when his analysis of online defense of the LDS faith has been remarkably insightful and dead on, in my opinion. There are other times when, again in my opinion, he missed the mark or engaged in so much personal focus that it smelled like a vendetta. I have thought that his intense focus on DCP was more of a vendetta than an analysis. Initially I didn’t think so, but as time went on I did. So I don’t agree with some of his methods, and I disagree that it’s likely the people he targeted have disappeared permanently into near-silence. I think that, instead, some of his behavior has given them a reason to feel martyred and persecuted.

But having said that, I must say this in regard to this portion of Scratch’s comments:

I don't know that I've ever been more disgusted in my entire life. Will Bagley noted rather recently, in his Mormon Expressions podcast, that he very much feels badly about the way he was treated by these figures in Mormon Studies. (He characterized them as "vicious.") I continue to believe that the Mopologists are the most poisonous and evil element in contemporary Mormonism--worse, even, in my view, than anything that the institutional Church does. Being persuaded to give up huge chunks of your time and money under false pretenses is one thing; doing this and then getting crapped on and kicked in the teeth during moments of enormous spiritual pain is quite another.

Now there are some details I would alter, if I were speaking. I wouldn’t say that this has disgusted me more than anything else in my entire life. I have experienced and/or witnessed things far more disgusting than the online behavior of some defenders of the LDS faith. So I would clip that sentence. I would also clip the sentence about online defenders of the faith being the most poisonous and evil element in contemporary Mormonism, worse than anything the institutional church does. I would remove “evil” altogether, but allow “poisonous” with some qualifications. I also think that the work the LDS church has done to ensure the continuation of the unjust second-class citizenry of homosexuals is far more poisonous than what online defenders of the faith do, and with a far larger impact. I also think that the continued obsession with sexual purity, which includes private acts, can have a devastating effect on the sexual development of its young people, and that also has a wider impact than online apologia. As well as the second-class citizenry of its female members, in terms of access to the right to perform sacred ordinances.

Having made those qualifiers, I must say this:

Being persuaded to give up huge chunks of your time and money under false pretenses is one thing; doing this and then getting crapped on and kicked in the teeth during moments of enormous spiritual pain is quite another.

I think this is a true statement, and captures what has bothered me about online apologia for years.

I lost any belief in Mormonism years before I got online. But the process of losing faith was long and incredibly painful for me. I understand it may not be for others, but I think it is long and incredibly painful for many. During that period of intense pain, I was still active in church, although the last year of my church membership I only attended once a month or so. However, by that time I had lost belief and was hanging on simply because I was afraid of the next step. So I think it’s fair to say that during the period in which I was wavering in faith, but had not totally given up my belief in the church, I was active. And reaching out, mainly to my family and members of my ward, and occasionally leadership. The problem was that the vast majority of members had no idea what I was talking about. They didn’t know Joseph’s polyandrous history, for example, which was probably the trigger for my questioning of the faith. There were only two members of my ward that seemed to know about this. One was a sister who told me, basically, that “even though the church may not be what it claims to be, it’s a good place to raise children.” That wasn’t what I was looking for. The second was a respected member who was regarded as a historian. He actually wrote a book about Nauvoo history that was supposedly (according to him) used as a text in some BYU classes. His son went on to achieve notable fame as an author of apologia. (I will not name him. He does not participate anywhere online as far as I know, and is a good person.) He was a rather intimidating fellow and had a reputation for being somewhat dismissive of sisters in particular, so calling him was an act of courage and desperation on my part. I nervously asked him “Have you ever read or learned anything about early church history that was hard to understand or deal with?” (this is a paraphrase, it’s been too long for me to remember my exact words, but that is the gist of it) His answer: no. That was it. No other questioning, like “Sister, is there something you’d like to discuss with me?” Just no. It was obvious he had no interest in further discussion. I was already half afraid of him, so I just thanked him quickly and hung up. But I have never forgotten how lost I felt. He seemed to be the one last lifeline to me, the one person I could think of who MUST have learned these things and yet still found a way to believe, which is what I was trying to do.

I don’t pretend to know why he just said “no”. I really don’t. As I said, he was not known for social graces and it was rumored treated his wife poorly. She certainly had a negative attitude toward men and power from what I saw, so maybe he gave her the reason for that. But his children, the ones I knew, were extremely nice. Even after I left the church they went out of their way to be friendly to me whenever they saw me. It was just him.

I felt hopeless after that. I felt like I must be the only person in the world who had lost faith in Mormonism due to its history. After all, didn’t most apostates leave the church due to personal sin? I had no personal sin, no desire to sin. Yet I was losing faith in the church. I was all alone.

I was so desperate to reach out to someone, anyone, who could help me, who could understand my pain, that I actually wrote to the author of an “anti-Mormon” book, an EV with whom I clearly disagreed on theological points. He kindly wrote me back and assured me that one day it would get better. That was what I needed to hear.

I have often wondered what would have happened to me had I been online during that period of wavering faith and doubts. No doubt I would have wandered onto a board like MAD, FAIR, or whatever it is called today. And I would have posted my problems with church history. I would have sounded like an apostate in disguise, because I would have brought up all the triggers. And I would have been treated poorly by the people I was looking to for help. I would have been told that it was due to my own laziness and negligence that I only now was learning these things. I would have been scolded for pretending to be the “defender of dead Mormon women.” Some may have called me a liar.

It would have been devastating. Far more devastating than the curt “No” I received from the historian in my ward. It would have been as if he said “no” and then followed up with a long diatribe about everything that was wrong with me.

I am so glad that I wasn’t online during that most painful period of my life. Really glad.

Now I know that believers will argue with this statement:

Being persuaded to give up huge chunks of your time and money under false pretenses is one thing; doing this and then getting crapped on and kicked in the teeth during moments of enormous spiritual pain is quite another.

They don’t think it’s under false pretenses, obviously. But maybe part of them can recognize why someone who no longer believes in the basic claims of Mormonism would see it as false pretenses. They don’t think that people who lose faith are getting crapped on and kicked in the teeth. They think they’re the ones doing the crapping and kicking.

But I ask them to remember this: sincere, decent people can be troubled by what they learn about early Mormon history. Those same sincere, decent people can turn around and ask questions, looking for help, in moments of deep spiritual pain. And maybe those questions are ones that “apostates” ask to provoke members. Maybe you’ve heard those questions a million times, and are sick and tired of online apostates disrespecting your faith.

But remember this: when you choose to react to those questions automatically assuming that a devious apostate is just trying to provoke you, and you engage in a diatribe about what’s wrong with the person asking that question, the truth may be that it is really a wavering member reaching out for help. And you’ve just crapped on him or her and kicked him or her in the teeth.

This post wrenched my gut. So well spoken, beastie. It brought me right back to the days when I first began expressing even a smidgeon of doubt in the church back in 2005. The Bloggernaclers were merciless in their cold condescension. They drove me to the NOM board and then the Foyer and the rest is history. The response of believers like Simon and stem just drives your point home with even greater force. I think the apologists don't realize how many people read these boards but never post. They form judgments about the participants. There are so many who never post but who are influenced by these boards. I think, on balance, the apologists come off very badly to those who are open-minded and searching for truth.

[_Simon Belmont]

The response of believers like Simon and stem and droopy just drives your point home with even greater force. I think the apologists don't realize how many people read these boards but never post. They form judgments about the participants. There are so many who never post but who are influenced by these boards. I think, on balance, the apologists come off very badly to those who are open-minded and searching for truth.

And how do people like this come off to you?


How about these folk?


How about this guy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ab3SiqCqI0

Yes, it seems, it isn't these vile creatures -- it's the Mormons themselves who perpetuate hatred.

Right.

Whatever perceived bad behavior anyone takes issue with concerning LDS apologists, remember this: critics and anti-Mormons wrote the book on the behavior. Apologetics is a response to criticism. No critics = no apologists; there isn't a simpler truth than that.

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

The response of believers like Simon and stem and droopy just drives your point home with even greater force. I think the apologists don't realize how many people read these boards but never post. They form judgments about the participants. There are so many who never post but who are influenced by these boards. I think, on balance, the apologists come off very badly to those who are open-minded and searching for truth.

And how do people like this come off to you?


How about these folk?


Simon,

Are those pictures of the MMM or perhaps a re-creation of the many bishops who carried out blood atonement executions or castrations in the Salt Lake Valley in the early days?

[_Simon Belmont]

Simon,

Are those pictures of the MMM or perhaps a re-creation of the many bishops who carried out blood atonement executions or castrations in the Salt Lake Valley in the early days?

Think about it really ... thoughtfully.

Ready for your answer?

Nope. And the two or three isolated incidents of which you speak, though tragic, do not necessitate 180+ years of violence, murder, assassination, extermination orders, massacres, and endless verbal and written assaults.

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

Simon,

Are those pictures of the MMM or perhaps a re-creation of the many bishops who carried out blood atonement executions or castrations in the Salt Lake Valley in the early days?

Think about it really ... thoughtfully.

Ready for your answer?

Nope. And the two or three isolated incidents of which you speak, though tragic, do not necessitate 180+ years of violence, murder, assassination, extermination orders, massacres, and endless verbal and written assaults.

I hate to break it to you Simon, but if you truly studied Church history you would know that we LDS have a long and storied tradition of violence, murder and assassination orders and massacres. Come on Simon, study.

[_Simon Belmont]

I hate to break it to you Simon, but if you truly studied Church history you would know that we LDS have a long and storied tradition of violence, murder and assassination orders and massacres. Come on Simon, study.

Who is "we?"

You aren't part of us.