Anything I missed?

[_Jersey Girl]

delete

head banging/brick wall

[_Roger]

Simon:

In all honesty, I have always been respectful of whatever people choose to believe. I have many colleagues and friends who come from a wide variety of faith backgrounds, but I love them the same.

Good. That's the way it should be.

When I take issue, is when a person, or a group choose to attack another faith or its members. For me, this is wrong, and it leads down the road of bigotry (depending on the severity of the attacks). So I must ask your opinion, then: why do so many people on this board feel that it is morally correct to attack another faith group, simply because they disagree?

That's not a simple question to answer. In the first place, I think your use of the word "attack" is subjective. Obviously you used the word, so you think it best describes what you see happening, but I doubt if the posters of which you speak would characterize it as you have.

Just so we're clear, I am not an ex-Mormon. I'm an Evangelical. But I think most of the people you are referring to are ex-Mo's. Here's my take... so you show up here, ready to valiantly defend the one true church. Stand for truth. Face the onslaught. In an effort to stand for truth against those who would malign the church, you dive headlong into discussions and start making your stand. So the critics and ex-Mo's let you have it. This, you then interpret as "attacks." Well maybe so? Again, it's a subjective opinion as to whether they are "attacking" or "defending" but there's certainly a war of words going on.

But something you also need to consider with that, is that the internet (or at least this website) allows a safe place to do exactly that. What you see coming out as words on a screen represent--for many of the ex-Mo's--a lot of pent up frustration that can't be released in any other (appropriate) manner. It's not necessarily directed at you specifically. You have to understand that much if not most of what they say to you is not personal. How could it be? How well do they even know you? How well can you know anyone online? Certainly your personality comes across to an extent, but when you realize that people have the freedom to really say what they think with minimal consequences, it helps when it comes to just letting some things go.

Now, as you've probably noticed, I have been a jerk to some people (Joseph, Polygamy-Porter, and some schmo, namely) because I want them to understand what it feels like to be attacked in hopes that they will become more peaceful.

I freely admit that this tactic did not work.

I don't know what has transpired because I don't read every thread here, and if people get involved in a back and forth, I usually don't even bother to read it unless something captures my attention.

From what I've seen of Porter, he will tell you what he thinks regardless of the consequences! He can correct me if I am wrong but I get the feeling he is one of those ex-Mo's who feels like he was lied to and may harbor some hostility toward the church. So when you come here to defend it, you're stepping into that hostility.

Schmo is a good guy. He's an atheist but from what I can tell he doesn't take anything too seriously.

And I don't know Joseph very well at all, but I get the feeling he recently left the church so his "wounds" may still be fresh.

But my larger point in response to your question is that really... if you take a step back you realize this is just a discussion board on the internet. (no offense to shades!) If you're getting seriously offended by whatever transpires here, my suspicion is you're taking it a bit too seriously. People are people, and as I said, this site offers a safe place to say things we probably wouldn't if we were standing face to face (well.... with the exception of Porter! : )

My guess is that even for most of the ex-Mo's there is at least a sentimental "love" for the COJCOLDS and a wish that it would have been true. But they've come to realize that it isn't and they feel they were lied to. That creates a mixture of emotions. Was it Packer who said they can leave the church but they just can't leave it alone? Well I think it's quite understandable that they can't leave it alone. If you believe you were lied to and taken advantage of for years it tends to bother you!

As for me... you may ask, why am I here? Do I just enjoy attacking/persecuting poor, harmless LDS? Let's go back to your own words:

When I take issue, is when a person, or a group choose to attack another faith or its members.

Think about this, Simon... when the missionaries show up at my door and attempt to convert me to Mormonism, aren't they attacking my faith? I can see you on the other side of my screen cringing in shock and disbelief. But just think about it... no, they're not attacking my faith with guns or physical force or even ad-homs (at least not in my presence). But when it gets down to where the rubber meets the road, they are indeed attacking my faith. They are telling me that the knowledge I have as an Ev is incomplete, that the Jesus I think I know is incomplete and that I do not belong to the one true church. They are telling me there is additional revelation that, as a believer in the Bible, I really should accept as well. If Mormonism were simply another Christian denomination, when the missionaries hear that I am a Christian, they should say, praise God! and then move on to the next home. But they don't. I've spoken with 4 sets of missionaries over the last 10 years. Ultimately they want me to leave my church and join theirs. I don't have Methodists or Presbyterians or Catholics, etc. knocking on my door asking me to join their church because my church lacks revelation. I only experience that from the JW's and the Mormons.

So are the Mormons attacking my faith? In a polite way, to be sure, but ultimately, yes, it's an attack. Now don't get me wrong, Simon, I don't mind LDS missionaries knocking on my door. In fact I enjoy talking to them. Why? Well because in the first place I respect anyone who gives up so much for a cause they believe in. But in the second place, because I know enough about LDS history that they do not intimidate me.

The problem I have, is that the vast majority of Christians know next to nothing about Mormonism. And you know as well as I do that the missionaries aren't going to be presenting the doctrine of eternal progression (that God has not always been God) or baptism for the dead or the concept that Eve's sin was a good thing or that Jesus is not our creator but simply our elder brother or that Satan is also our elder brother or that God has a tangible body or that God is a polygamist or D & C 132, etc, etc.... during their visits. Milk before meat, right? That's part of the deception that upsets people and eventually creates feelings of betrayal.

But I realize I am a bit unusual. Although I see Joseph Smith as a con-man, I enjoy discussing Mormonism and especially Mormon history. I got into it as a result of a missionary visit back in 2001. At that point I knew I did not know enough about it and the missionaries were making a valiant effort to convert me. So I started investigating and I have been investigating ever since. Now when the missionaries show up, I bring up Mormon history. Usually, they give back blank stares and eventually they recite their testimony.

In my interactions with TBMs online over the years, the topic of how do you (critics) explain the Book of Mormon? kept coming up. How could a country bumpkin produce this massive and complex volume? You know, basically Nibley's challenge. So I turned my investigative attention to Book of Mormon production in an effort to provide a satisfactory answer. I did not realize how deep that would get me into this.

In short, I will grant, Simon, that the Book of Mormon is something unusual. It is too easily brushed aside by my fellow Evangelicals as an obvious creation of Joseph Smith. But if Joseph Smith is solely responsible for the Book of Mormon, he was certainly a savant. I am not saying he couldn't have produced it. I am saying I think there is a better explanation and in light of that better explanation it seems unlikely to me that he did it by himself.

Care to have that debate?

All the best.

PS... Okay Jersey might tell what she thinks face to face too. : )

[_Jersey Girl]

Roger, I don't know what this means

PS... Okay Jersey might tell what she thinks face to face too. : )

[_Roger]

Jersey Girl:

Sorry, you'd have to filter through my longwinded post to get to this:

People are people, and as I said, this site offers a safe place to say things we probably wouldn't if we were standing face to face (well.... with the exception of Porter! : )

It was a rather poor attempt at humor based on your previous post.

All the best.

[_Jersey Girl]

Jersey Girl:

Sorry, you'd have to filter through my longwinded post to get to this:

People are people, and as I said, this site offers a safe place to say things we probably wouldn't if we were standing face to face (well.... with the exception of Porter! : )

It was a rather poor attempt at humor based on your previous post.

All the best.

The previous post that I deleted? Are you insinuating that I would say face to face the very same things that I post?

Heck yeah, I would.

[_Roger]

Jersey Girl:

Are you insinuating that I would say face to face the very same things that I post?

I know, I know. It was a pretty dastardly accusation on my part....

Whatever else may or may not be true... Jersey Girl rocks.

[_Jersey Girl]

Let's try this again...

Simon

In all honesty, I have always been respectful of whatever people choose to believe.

You need to choose your words more carefully. You are NOT respectful of whatever people choose to believe. There are people here who believe that the LDS Church is unhealthy for folks. Instead of respectfully "listening" to them, you respond like a cold hearted, one dimensional jerk.

I have many colleagues and friends who come from a wide variety of faith backgrounds, but I love them the same.

Your "love" is conditional. You don't "love" the folks here who are angry or hurting. You extend no compassion, no empathy, no understanding of their expressions. Love is an ACT, Simon.

When I take issue, is when a person, or a group choose to attack another faith or its members. For me, this is wrong, and it leads down the road of bigotry (depending on the severity of the attacks). So I must ask your opinion, then: why do so many people on this board feel that it is morally correct to attack another faith group, simply because they disagree?

You are referring to ex-Mo's. You ask why they feel it's morally correct to "attack another faith group".

Stop acting like a jerk, Simon. It's not just "another faith group" to them. It's THEIR former faith group. Some "attack" it because they believe they were screwed over by it. Some criticize it because they disagree with it. This board isn't filled with attackers. It's filled with people expressing a broad spectrum of disagreement with the church.

Some of the ex-Mo's on here, have Mormon spouses, children, family and friends. Of course, they could express themselves to said spouses, children, family and friends, and in most cases, probably would if it were not for the drama and razz of crap they would receive in return. If YOU attack them back, how do you think their loved one's would respond who are emotionally invested in them?

Stop acting like a total jerk.

Now, as you've probably noticed, I have been a jerk to some people (Joseph, Polygamy-Porter, and some schmo, namely) because I want them to understand what it feels like to be attacked in hopes that they will become more peaceful.

I freely admit that this tactic did not work.

Did knowing how it feels to be attacked make YOU more peaceful? Do you see how and where this goes wrong?

I see NO caring in you for others, NO compassion, NO understanding nor interest in understanding.

What I see in you is one huge intellectual/emotional brick wall with very little human understanding attached to it.

You have racked up well over 1,000 posts in just under two months time here, most of your posts are flippant and superficial. Hell, you got pissed off over Scratch dismissing you from an imaginary university!

Over invested much?

And yet, there is no part of you that has the capacity to relate to those who are pissed off over a religious organization that they feel screwed them over in multiple ways, took their years, their good faith, and their money.

You rag on them for the "choices" that they have made and tell them that those choices and the feelings associated with those choices (in hindsight) are their responsibility.

And you yourself are full of crap.

The ex-Mo's on this board have made the choice to investigate their own church. They've made the choice to step away from their own church based on those investigations. They've made the choice to speak what they believe is the truth and YOU cannot tolerate the feelings associated with the range of their expressions.

In some cases, that stepping away was at great personal expense. Some lost their marriages, their relationship with their children, their parents and such.

And there you are attempting to control their expressions when you cannot control your own.

1,000+ posts in 50 days isn't evidence of self control.

It's evidence of some guy on an anti-anti bender who can't step away and come up for air. How's that working out for you, Simon?

And here's the kicker...

You know many of us from other boards.

You know many of us and there you are lashing out at people you know as if they were objects instead of human beings, pumping out 1,000+ posts in 50 days, most of them representative of your own emotional reaction to their emotional reaction, and yet you choose to criticize THEM for what they feel while giving yourself a free pass on what YOU feel.

Man/mirror

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I do not recognize that. It is blatantly false.

Hello,

Everyone understands that the Mormon church's numbers are inflated. For example, when I served in Peru there was a Branch numbering over 500 members. Any given Sunday, 12 or 13 people might show up for services. I came to find out that most of the members simply were baptized because they didn't want to offend the missionaries. They considered themselves Catholic, but were just being polite.

Can you imagine getting dressed in those baptismal clothes and getting dunked because you can't say "no"? Those people were Saints.

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_Jason Bourne]

Well, after years and years of boards like this, and RfM existing, there remains a substantial number of people who remain active in the LDS Church. Basically, anti-Mormonism only affected a very small percentage of people. The work of building God's kingdom will not be frustrated.

September 22, 2010,

I hereby announce that anti-Mormonism is ineffective.

The Church is true; the end.

Nobody has claimed or is claiming that Mormonism is at its end. However, its growth has certainly slowed and not significantly, especially in the US. The converts it is attracting, at least where I live are not exactly the cream of the crop and that is fine because Christ came to all. But I cannot recall the last time I say a solid middle class convert family join. The inactivity rates are high especially outside the US, and convert retention is horrible. Recently a ward in my area has such low attendance, about 130 out of 450, that they carved off parts of the neighboring wards to beef up the lagging ward.

All really is not well in Zion Simon. It it because of the critics and the internet? I do not know really. I am sure that the ready information on the internet simply cannot help especially in the convert area. But I have no proof other than the Church is not thriving in its growth.

[_thews]

It it because of the critics and the internet? I do not know really. I am sure that the ready information on the internet simply cannot help especially in the convert area.

In all sincerity Jason, do you believe the critical information on the internet is in fact true?