End goal?

[Guest]

The falsehood of the church itself does not make me angry. What makes me angry is the obvious and willful arrogance and blindness of apologists who merely want to find ways to create doubt. Churches may be about faith but apologetics is about doubt.

I get angry at apologists because they have no interest in the cohesiveness of their polemics. No matter what the argument against their position is, their consistent answer is to try to create doubt about the argument. Then, when it is suggested that their entire faith is based on self-trust, they just ignore you or assert how they "KNOW" that they can't be wrong about their interpretation of a spiritual epiphany. They, in essence, declare themselves infallible with regard to that one experience because they know that all else hinges upon it.

I am glad that there is a board like this one where anger can be expressed sometimes. Some positions are only deserving of ridicule, not only because of their glaring unreasonableness, but also because the authors of those positions like to simultaneoulsy claim that they are being reasonable. They either are completely ignorant or they are willfully deceitful. I am very cynical about apologists and happen to believe that the majority of them are willingly deceitful and are merely wish to have fun at defending their cherished culture. They are pugilists at heart and simply enjoy the fight.

Although I am not one who wishes to church to end all of a sudden, I do wish to see it end in the next couple of generations. I have active family members who are so deeply attached at the cultural level that they wouldn't care if all the claims were actually proven false. I nevertheless wish to maintain these relationships and so I go along for the ride the best I can.

This place gives me the opportunity to occasionally vent. I don't do it often but when I do I am channeling a lot of built up thoughts and ideas that I don't share with my local LDS relatives and friends. And sometimes I go for the throat, especially when I can tell that there is no getting through to some blatantly blinded souls.

The LDS people are very good people. My parents and sibs are great people and they are active LDS. My spouse is a great person and is active LDS. My children are becoming LDS although I seek to influence them to think critically about all ideas and positions--something I think most LDS don't do. Apologists like to think they do, but they don't.

Even anger has its season although, in my opinion, it should be used appropriately and not without restraint.

Is stereotyping an appropriate use of anger?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Is it?

What do you think?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't know what you think.

[_karl61]

I am a somewhat active member of the church. Someone gave a talk about Mormon message boards. Then this whole topic came up at BYU. It seems strange people are so angry. Why are people so angry? Is there similar feelings from people who leave catholic methodist or even Islam? And is there an end goal? Do people here want the church to shut down?

I think of orthodox Mormon belief as somewhat like a egg. You believe so much in the egg that when cracks appear, you are devastated. Some are appalled by the substance inside the egg and will walk away. Some will yell and scream as they are walking. Others will deny the crack exists. Then there are those, who after some reflection decide to make something of the contents.

Anyone care for an omelet?

not with a rotten egg.

[_moksha]

I am a somewhat active member of the church. Someone gave a talk about Mormon message boards. Then this whole topic came up at BYU. It seems strange people are so angry. Why are people so angry? Is there similar feelings from people who leave catholic methodist or even Islam? And is there an end goal? Do people here want the church to shut down?

I think of orthodox Mormon belief as somewhat like a egg. You believe so much in the egg that when cracks appear, you are devastated. Some are appalled by the substance inside the egg and will walk away. Some will yell and scream as they are walking. Others will deny the crack exists. Then there are those, who after some reflection decide to make something of the contents.

Anyone care for an omelet?

not with a rotten egg.

That is what curry powder is for. :D

Seriously, you are probably still in shock from the whites, either that, or you cannot take the yoke.

[_The Nehor]

You have one person named Infymus who I have read some of his posts. I would like to understand his views but some of the way he expresses himself is so angry I just do not want to read it anymore. I can not take it seriously. If I take the time to express my views I would not know how to do so in a way people would take me seriously. I might be better reading than posting.

Infymus' tactics are blunt, to be sure. He's right, though. He may not convince many LDS this way, but on the other hand, there are few ways in which true-believing LDS would be convinced anyhow. Infymus is telling the truth, even if in a way that you find very offensive.

Infymus may put this bluntly by challenging some LDS priesthood holder to curse him, but he's right on. The overwhelming majority of LDS PH holders wouldn't dare stand up and actually curse him, because deep down inside they know it won't really work. And if any did actually stand up and curse him, it wouldn't work. The Melchezedek Priesthood is a mirage. It's the illusion of power, without the substance of it. LDS priesthood power exists inasmuch as people submit themselves to it, and in no other way. Infymus knows this, and so he stands up and calls out the Priesthood holders, and nobody, of course, can respond, except to get mad at him for having the audacity to call them out in such a rude way.

Would you think more or less of me if I cursed him through this board and he was dead tomorrow?

[_charity]

{ re: JW household vs LDS household} Is the difference here, in your mind, that the JWs really aren't true, but the LDS really are, so of course it's all totally different?

One of my best friends in high school was JW. I had many philosophical disagreements with the theology. This was long before I converted. So no, the difference I see is not based on whether or not we are "true" and they aren't. I came from a family which highly valued education and self-development. The low expectations and limitations of the entire JW theology was not attractive to me. LDS theology emphasizes education and self-development more than any other religion. For that reason alone, your analogy misses the mark.

In the second place, no one held a gun to your head. You were smart. You could study. You could reason. You made choices. You invested your money and time and you got benefits. Later you changed your mind. So what is the beef?

You're right. I am smart, I studied, I could reason, and I made choices. That process eventually overcame the indoctrination and conditioning of my mind, the shaping of my whole cosmology and worldview, and lead me to some truth about the LDS church, ie: that it's not actually true. And hence I no longer believe.

But you used that intelligence and study and reason to form your cosmology and worldview, in the first place, as LDS. No matter what your early education and training, a part of becoming an independent adult in the teens is examining what you know and think you know and forming your own belief system. This usually occurs late teens. That is what lead to me joining the Church.

My beef is that so many intelligent people whom I know personally are still stuck in this false worldview. Some of them are suffering because of it. I had a long talk with my sister recently, where I came away thinking that she's under a lot of mental stress because she knows there's something wrong with her religious worldview, but the cobwebs are so think, and the cords that bind her mind are so strong, that she's struggling to understand what's going on. She's very smart. She graduated #1 in her class from Yale a few years back and is perhaps less than a year from having her PhD. It's a crying shame that a mind like hers, and her PhD husband's, should be subjected to such false belief systems from the day they're born.

This is one of the big fallacies of the anti-Mormon and ex-mormon rationalization. That if only Person X could think clealry and not be "shackled" with "indoctrination" from their childhood, then they could be"enlightened" like we are. I am living proof that intelligent people can come to the LDS faith with no early teaching, can study and learn and actively CHOSE it.

What ticks me off, in a way, is that someone like her is stuck swimming in a manmade mire of false beliefs, mythology, and superstition. Her powerful mind and intellect are literally hobbled by Joseph's Myth. And it shouldn't have to be like that. I see it as a fact of life that so many people in the world (almost everyone, really) are raised in false belief systems which fashion worldviews that render themselves nearly impossible to overcome. But I don't like it. It violates my innate sense of fairness.

This presupposes that your new worldview is correct.

And Charity, please, you were a 19 year old college kid when you converted. You were only an adult in the strictly legalistic sense. They handed you the Cool Aid, and you gulped it down by the gallon. You've given over your heart, soul, and mind, to a mythology. The church isn't true, and you are incapable of seeing that. You never will, because you have chosen not to, and fashioned for yourself over the succeeding decades a worldview which enforces itself at the most basic and fundemental stages of your thought processes, which ensures that you never will. The axioms and values built into your religious and philosophical cosmology prevent you seeing an ounce of truth in what I say, and even as you read these words you've never taken them seriously and you are merely thinking up what your response will be.

Wrong. I considered carefully what you said. I did study philsophy at one time. What I see in your post is the common human hubris. "The way I see things is the only possible way, and if only everyone were as enlightened and smart as I am, they would see it, too."

And by the way, I don't believe that everyone will see the Church as I see it. If we were all to see it the same way there would have been no purpose in mortal existence, beyond gaining a physical body.

[_Runtu]

This is one of the big fallacies of the anti-Mormon and ex-mormon rationalization. That if only Person X could think clealry and not be "shackled" with "indoctrination" from their childhood, then they could be"enlightened" like we are. I am living proof that intelligent people can come to the LDS faith with no early teaching, can study and learn and actively CHOSE it.

And yet another strawman, charity. I'm really disappointed in you. I think most of us here would agree that intelligent people can study and learn and actively choose to believe in Mormonism. Where we disagree is in the idea that those of us who choose not to believe are somehow deceived, stupid, or evil.

[_moksha]

I am a somewhat active member of the church. Someone gave a talk about Mormon message boards. Then this whole topic came up at BYU. It seems strange people are so angry. Why are people so angry? Is there similar feelings from people who leave catholic methodist or even Islam? And is there an end goal? Do people here want the church to shut down?

I think of orthodox Mormon belief as somewhat like a egg. You believe so much in the egg that when cracks appear, you are devastated. Some are appalled by the substance inside the egg and will walk away. Some will yell and scream as they are walking. Others will deny the crack exists. Then there are those, who after some reflection decide to make something of the contents.

Anyone care for an omelet?

not with a rotten egg.

That is what curry powder is for. :D

Seriously, you are probably still in shock from the whites, either that, or you cannot take the yoke.

Beyond denial, I forgot about apologetic egg tape. You might consider this as well.

[_Moniker]

Dogmaster, as with most issues, there is no one answer that fits all.

Yes, there are those who want to destroy the Church. One person here has repeatedly said that is his goal. These people are anti-Mormons.

Yes, you will see anger and bitterness. It can be explained as Some Schmo and the style guy have described. They think they were deceived. And that makes them angry. I am sure this happens to some people. There is another explanation. There are individuals who are being deceived out of the Church and having to fight against knowing deep down that they should be staying. Trying to criticize the Church is the only way they can do this. These are the people that Elder Maxwell described as "they can leave the Church, but they can't leave the Church alone."

It is a complicated issue. However, there is one thing to remember. All things good come from God. All things evil come from Satan. Those who fight against the Church, for whatever reason they think or feel themselves, are being deceived.
.

I wonder what Satan would think of an angry LDS (Charity) calling women "sluts", and women that are abused "weak" and "dumb"... I mean, that's not angry, or devilish, eh?

I think there is plenty of anger on this site. Dogdude, you want to see a bunch of angry folks on a bulletin board that are active take a looksie at the MAD board.

Charity, I am sooo sick of your self righteous patting yourself on the back. Your behavior has been despicable! You are cruel, hateful, and intolerant! Trying to put yourself into some elevated moral position in this thread sickens me!

YOU ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN THE ANGRY EX-MOS YOU CRITICIZE! Look in the mirror!

[_wenglund]

The falsehood of the church itself does not make me angry. What makes me angry is the obvious and willful arrogance and blindness of apologists who merely want to find ways to create doubt. Churches may be about faith but apologetics is about doubt.

I get angry at apologists because they have no interest in the cohesiveness of their polemics. No matter what the argument against their position is, their consistent answer is to try to create doubt about the argument. Then, when it is suggested that their entire faith is based on self-trust, they just ignore you or assert how they "KNOW" that they can't be wrong about their interpretation of a spiritual epiphany. They, in essence, declare themselves infallible with regard to that one experience because they know that all else hinges upon it.

I am glad that there is a board like this one where anger can be expressed sometimes. Some positions are only deserving of ridicule, not only because of their glaring unreasonableness, but also because the authors of those positions like to simultaneoulsy claim that they are being reasonable. They either are completely ignorant or they are willfully deceitful. I am very cynical about apologists and happen to believe that the majority of them are willingly deceitful and are merely wish to have fun at defending their cherished culture. They are pugilists at heart and simply enjoy the fight.

Although I am not one who wishes to church to end all of a sudden, I do wish to see it end in the next couple of generations. I have active family members who are so deeply attached at the cultural level that they wouldn't care if all the claims were actually proven false. I nevertheless wish to maintain these relationships and so I go along for the ride the best I can.

This place gives me the opportunity to occasionally vent. I don't do it often but when I do I am channeling a lot of built up thoughts and ideas that I don't share with my local LDS relatives and friends. And sometimes I go for the throat, especially when I can tell that there is no getting through to some blatantly blinded souls.

The LDS people are very good people. My parents and sibs are great people and they are active LDS. My spouse is a great person and is active LDS. My children are becoming LDS although I seek to influence them to think critically about all ideas and positions--something I think most LDS don't do. Apologists like to think they do, but they don't.

Even anger has its season although, in my opinion, it should be used appropriately and not without restraint.

Is stereotyping an appropriate use of anger?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Is it?

What do you think?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't know what you think.

I wasn't asking you what I think. I was asking you what you think (which explains my use of the word "you" rather than "I" in the question I asked you).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_dogmaster]

Someone asked me where I was from. I do not want to get too personal, but I am from the east coast.