Why "cowardly anonymity" may indeed be best

[cacheman]

I am not standing up for Will. Did you read that in my reply to another post? So don't accuse me of something I'm not doing. But I did not see any hints at inside knowledge. As I posted, he said he knows things from the way a person looks and WHAT THEY SAY!

I have never once said that I try to undermine my family's faith; in fact, I've said the opposite. I leave them alone in matters of faith. Will said that he knows more about me than I think because "it's a small world," which I took as a hint that he has inside knowledge of what goes on in my home. He accused me of lying about a conversation with my daughter, and then he used that to launch an attack on my character, saying that I had indoctrinated my children to hate the church. That is an ugly lie. And you supported it because you said we only had my side of the story, as if Will has another side. He might, if he actually knew my family, but he doesn't.

So, are you supporting the idea that Will or anyone else can know what goes on in someone's home simply by what they say on a message board, particularly when they don't say anything about that topic?

I don't think anyone should meddle in anyone else's private life. If someone can be shown to be going around sowing discord, then that ought to be dealt with.

I do hold the view that the struggling member, as Will mentioned in his post, should be supported and helped as much as we can. The person who has decided he has definitely lef the Church, but stays a nominal member and tries to convince others to his point of view should be stripped of the protection of the membership of the Church he now despises.

In case you missed it, Will called me (by name) a "hard-core" apostate and said that I am one of the people who go around trying to "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."

Did you miss that? Or do you agree with him? Will is now saying that this ugly smear was all just a big joke intended to get a rise out of me. Apparently, he succeeded, I'll never take anything he says seriously again.

[_the road to hana]

The person who has decided he has definitely lef the Church, but stays a nominal member and tries to convince others to his point of view should be stripped of the protection of the membership of the Church he now despises.

"Stripped of the protection of the membership of the Church?" What on earth does that mean?

You think that members who continue to attend with their member spouses in order to keep a family together are doing something dishonorable? You'd prefer they move their spouse and children with them out of the church?

[_moksha]

Willl: "Believe me, it's not near as difficult as you'd like to believe. You'd be surprised how much the countenance of a man reveals to someone who has the ability to interpret its signs. Of course, that's just the first sign. From that point all you have to do is get him to open his mouth and start talking. It will all come spilling out in a flood.

My therapist would be very concerned if I said something like this.

Runtu, I sincerely hope Schryver comes to his senses and behaves in a Christ-like manner before he does something to damage you and your family. Maybe Charity could help him calm down and realize these are only forums for the exchange of ideas.

[_beastie]

He quotes only a portion of my statement, and thereby attempts to insinuate that I want to "root out the unbelievers." 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.

Will, on the MAD thread.

This is exactly why so many MADdites can't stand John and act like he's a rabid anti-mormon. They can't STAND that he speaks in "measured tones" and "breathy soft speech" (not sure what "breathy" means, but soft speech is obvious). This makes him far more dangerous than the real rabid anti-mormons who are easy to ignore in their rabidity. Why? Because he makes sense and is not simply an angry attacker. That means believers might LISTEN to him.

If they weren't threatened by the actual CONTENT of what people like John have to say, that wouldn't worry them. Truth can withstand scrutiny - and they're worried. That speaks volumes.

[_moksha]

This is exactly why so many MADdites can't stand John and act like he's a rabid anti-mormon. They can't STAND that he speaks in "measured tones" and "breathy soft speech" (not sure what "breathy" means, but soft speech is obvious). This makes him far more dangerous than the real rabid anti-mormons who are easy to ignore in their rabidity. Why? Because he makes sense and is not simply an angry attacker. That means believers might LISTEN to him.

So he doesn't have rattles to warn of his coming? Runtu is always upfront with his disbelief. He has never seemed subversive to me although I guess they figure that anyone that well spoken is bound to be persuasive.

The prospect of on the cusp lurkers is intriguing. Sort of like in The Stand, for those who could not decide whether to follow Mother Abigail or Mercury and Boaz.

[_Runtu]

So he doesn't have rattles to warn of his coming? Runtu is always upfront with his disbelief. He has never seemed subversive to me although I guess they figure that anyone that well spoken is bound to be persuasive.

The prospect of on the cusp lurkers is intriguing. Sort of like in The Stand, for those who could not decide whether to follow Mother Abigail or Mercury and Boaz.

It's funny, but whenever I've gotten messages from people "on the cusp" I tell them the same thing: "Don't make any decisions on my account. Just stick with the truth as you see it, and you'll be fine."

I guess that makes me evil. LOL

[_moksha]

It's funny, but whenever I've gotten messages from people "on the cusp" I tell them the same thing: "Don't make any decisions on my account. Just stick with the truth as you see it, and you'll be fine."

I guess that makes me evil. LOL

That is a totally honest answer, although we all have a duty to ourselves to be open to new input so we can learn and grow. There is no compelling reason however to abandon that which we believe and trust unless we make that concious decision.

[_Doctor Steuss]

It's funny, but whenever I've gotten messages from people "on the cusp" I tell them the same thing: "Don't make any decisions on my account. Just stick with the truth as you see it, and you'll be fine."

Lest anyone think this to be only anecdotal, John has never (once) tried to "push me over the edge" in our conversations.

He did once try to get me to join him at a terrorist training camp though.

[_beastie]

What Will's comments betray is that, without the distraction of a frothing angry "anti-mormon", what critics say makes sense and is therefore threatening.

If the content of what the critics are saying, in their "soft tones" was easily refuted or dismissed, they wouldn't be a threat.

The simple reason for why they're a threat is that what they're saying is true, and what they're saying provides compelling evidence that the church is not what it claims to be.

[_Runtu]

Lest anyone think this to be only anecdotal, John has never (once) tried to "push me over the edge" in our conversations.

He did once try to get me to join him at a terrorist training camp though.

You're not supposed to tell anyone about that, Stu. ;)