Wade is posting on the postmorg!

[_beastie]

I really have to hold my tongue with you, whyme, due to your irritating, determined, cluelessness.

Wade needs to demonstrate he has changed because wade himself claims he has changed.

He claims he has found a more successful manner of interacting and being, and wants to share that with others.

He arrives at an exmormon site and declares his wish to help these people deal more productively with their pain. When his long, and usually nasty, history raises its ugly little head (as it always will, Wade has established too long of a history to ignore), he explains that he has altered his past behavior, found a more productive manner of viewing the world and interacting with it, and out of his benevolence, wants to share it. So when he demonstrates behavior that clearly, clearly demonstrate he hasn't changed at all, he dooms himself. No one else does it to him. It's not being outnumbered. It's being wade.

Runtu said it best:

That's exactly the problem. Wade isn't there to dialogue. He's there to invalidate the negative feelings people have about the LDS church. If you don't see that, you haven't been around Wade much.

I would say that whyme probably does see that - but since he agrees with it, doesn't have a problem with this goal.

[_Chap]

I have been observing Wade Englund's postings on postmormon.org.

It cannot be said that he has met with a warm welcome. Has anybody read the closing chapters of Charles Dickens' novel 'Martin Chuzzlewit'? (Yes, I know, it has bits in it that some Americans still hate, but ....). In that novel there is an infuriatingly self-satisfied and insistently saintly character called Mr Pecksniff, who is always telling everybody how good he is, how he forgives everybody for their anger, etc etc. Finally, to the reader's immense satisfaction, he gets the bum's rush he so richly deserves.

Only when I saw how Mr Englund was treated on that other board did I realise just who he reminded me of.

[_moksha]

Wade has been so nice and conciliatory lately, it would be a shame if he was mistreated.
Could it be said that the general poster over there is just going through an angry period in his or her life?

[_Chap]

Wade has been so nice and conciliatory lately, it would be a shame if he was mistreated.
Could it be said that the general poster over there is just going through an angry period in his or her life?

No one is 'mistreating him' there. The responses seem measured and appropriate - over and over again they are asking things like "If Mormons want to build bridges with exmormons, how about the CoJCoLDS ceasing to teach that 'apostates' have really given up belief because they were offended, wanted to sin, or never really believed anyhow?".

Funnily enough, Mr Englund does not seem interested in giving any kind of response to that rather important question. And absent anything but his continued protestations of general saintliness and good will, very much à la Pecksniff, they are expressing their dissatisfaction with the dialogue, and noting that his absence would be viewed with a certain equanimity on their part.

Or you could just call it the bum's rush, I suppose.

[_Gadianton]

I need to remind the Mormons here that an expert negotiator, bridge-builder, diplomat; a statesman like Wade does not get called into a job where the other side is ready to cooperate. A professional with his extensive resume would be bored if his targets were quick to agree. Step back and let the man work his magic. There would be no point in building a bridge if the valley were easily traversed.

[_KimberlyAnn]

I need to remind the Mormons here that an expert negotiator, bridge-builder, diplomat; a statesman like Wade does not get called into a job where the other side is ready to cooperate. A professional with his extensive resume would be bored if his targets were quick to agree. Step back and let the man work his magic. There would be no point in building a bridge if the valley were easily traversed.

LOL! Gad, you are so clever.

KA

[_why me]

Wade needs to demonstrate he has changed because wade himself claims he has changed.

He claims he has found a more successful manner of interacting and being, and wants to share that with others.

He arrives at an exmormon site and declares his wish to help these people deal more productively with their pain. When his long, and usually nasty, history raises its ugly little head (as it always will, Wade has established too long of a history to ignore), he explains that he has altered his past behavior, found a more productive manner of viewing the world and interacting with it, and out of his benevolence, wants to share it. So when he demonstrates behavior that clearly, clearly demonstrate he hasn't changed at all, he dooms himself. No one else does it to him. It's not being outnumbered. It's being wade.

Runtu said it best:

That's exactly the problem. Wade isn't there to dialogue. He's there to invalidate the negative feelings people have about the LDS church. If you don't see that, you haven't been around Wade much.

I would say that whyme probably does see that - but since he agrees with it, doesn't have a problem with this goal.

History is history and the past is the past. One cannot change the past but we all can look into the future and live in the present. I see no changes on the postmo site. The members are just being who they are. I see no changes, especially with Jeff. He is still comparing the church to a child molester and Wade's manner of speech was also compared to a child molester. How to progress with that take on things?

It is not about changing right away. It is about dialoging for understanding. But if the general manager keeps on saying that the LDS church spreads poo for people to step in, well, that is his opinion but quite impossible to have a dialogue. And that LDS church needs to change etc, well, I see no dialogue in that position also.

Dialogue is not between buildings or institutions but between people. And that is what wade attempted to do. But the judgementalism was certainly there on the postmo side. And what is strange about it all is that no postmo has said a positive thing about the LDS on wade's sight (unless I missed it) and yet, their website clearly states that they do keep what they consider was positive for them. Now that would be a good starting point, wouldn't it?

[_why me]

Wade has been so nice and conciliatory lately, it would be a shame if he was mistreated.
Could it be said that the general poster over there is just going through an angry period in his or her life?

No one is 'mistreating him' there. The responses seem measured and appropriate - over and over again they are asking things like "If Mormons want to build bridges with exmormons, how about the CoJCoLDS ceasing to teach that 'apostates' have really given up belief because they were offended, wanted to sin, or never really believed anyhow?".

Funnily enough, Mr Englund does not seem interested in giving any kind of response to that rather important question. And absent anything but his continued protestations of general saintliness and good will, very much à la Pecksniff, they are expressing their dissatisfaction with the dialogue, and noting that his absence would be viewed with a certain equanimity on their part.

And why should he? It doesn't make sense for him to do so and I think that it is a cop out by some of the postmos on that site. It has nothing to do with members and the ability to have a discussion. Many LDS do leave because of the reasons you cited. Of course there are other reasons too. But it has nothing to do with dialogue between people. It may have more to do with education between people.

What should wade do? Each exmo has their own reasons for being exmo. If wade would start recognizing each reason and call for a LDS apology, what we would have is a hundred reasons to apologize and with each day, there would be another reason to apologize since there would be one more exmo seeking an apology.

[_why me]

So Wade should apologize?

Yes, because he was totally out of line to KA. Yeah, that would be it.

If he feels he needs to repent of something he did there, then yes.

You don't seem to know the repentence process very well, Why Me.

Whatever Wade did to KA is between KA and Wade and not the postmo board. It is sort of like a marriage. The husband is speaking at an event and suddenly the wife bursts in and begins to bitch about the husband during the event. She gives her side in public and the poor guy is just making a speech at the event. Sounds bitter to me. Much better to work things out in private. Sometimes dirty laundry needs to be kept in the basement.

[_beastie]

whyme,

You really should go read Jeff's latest thread about Wade and denial. It describes you as well.


Gad -

LOL!!! I laughed so hard when I read your post this morning on postmormon that I may have to sue you for nasal damage when my peppermint tea spurted out of my nose!