Angry Apologists

[_beastie]

Any generalizations about an entire group, even if they share a certain characteristic, is bound to be flawed. I'm sure some are angry because that's just their personality. Some are angry due to perceived slights suffered. Some are angry because they feel the right to "righteous indignation". etc, etc

[_beastie]

Just for giggles, I long ago saved the link to one of the very first threads I ever participated on at ZLMB, and these are just some of the things Pahoran said to me, and to a few other posters, in a discussion about polygamy:

http://p079.ezboard.com/fpacumenispages ... 1&stop=257

All from Pahoran:

Thank you for that demonstration of your smug--and completely unwarranted--assumptions of superiority.

All you have managed to do, however, is demonstrate the paucity of your own imagination, as you continue to project your own hedonstic, comfort-seeking assumptions upon a generation of hardy, selfless pioneers long dead.

Quote: (question from another poster)

Now, tell us what/who are those other bigger fish the Utah Church had to fry? Just curious.


Various and rather nasty antipolygamy persecutions, of a kind Trixie et al must wholeheartedly approve of.

by the way, I was Trixie, and made no comment whatsoever that could have been interpreted to mean I approved of the persecution of polygamists. In fact, my stance has always been that polygamy ought to be legal.

Once again, guilt by association. Any religious prescriptions regarding marital customs and sexual morality are "obviously"--to the lazy, unthinking bigot--exactly the same as the worst abuses you can think of. Incidentally, you missed out gang rape as a religiously prescribed punishment. Why, that's no different from plural marriage either, is it?

I always admire those who use words skilfully. The communists, for instance, used to give their repressive dictatorial regimes cleverly deceitful names like "The People's Democratic Republic of So-and-so." Your manipulative use of such labels as "the Brighamite branch" and the slightly less disingenuous "the Utah-based church" is in the same glorious tradition.

Which makes sense, given that the so-called "Utah-based church" is the very same church that Joseph founded-- and every single anti-Mormon knows it.

(this post demonstrates his persistent trait of accusing "anti-mormons" of knowingly lying.)

I could find many, many more. I may have saved the one where Pahoran told Roger Loomis - a very restrained poster - that he (roger) approved of the murder of Mormons. I have some chores to do now, if I have time later this weekend, I'll share it.

[_beastie]

Oh, and let's not forget the self-admitted angry Juliann. On the first thread I participated on at FAIR, she repeatedly called me a liar and a plagiarist - without the slightest justification for either.

And then there's Charity, who regularly insinuates critics are inspired of Satan.

But the anger of believers is justified within the theology of the LDS church. Perhaps that is why believers don't find it objectionable in the same way they find PP and Merc objectionable.

[_truth dancer]

I hold to the belief that what comes out is reflective of what is inside!

;-)

The mean spirited nastiness is a result of what is doing on inside the angry person, and has little or nothing to do with the topic of conversation or those with whom one is conversing.

Most who experience anger can still be respectful and civil, but those whose anger manifests as cruelty and nastiness have something going on inside.


~dancer~

[_beastie]

Here is some evidence that often it is simply a personality trait that will be manifested no matter what "side" the person currently inhabits:

Ray Ago
True ZLoMBian
Posts: 1601
(1/13/04 7:13 am)
Reply Re: Well, do ya?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard,

My enemies among the silly, braindead apologist Mormons will have all their words come back to haunt them. When I left the church in '87 I had to deal with scatterbrains like them all the time who were taunting me. Now, some 16 years later, those who haven't ended up on RFM squealing like castrated pigs have finally realised the futility of it all.

The point is, I am not trapped by a church like they are. I am not subject to spiritual slavery like they are. I don't have to offer blind obedience to ordinances and temples like they do. I don't have to wear silly underwear like they do and swear to have my throat cut if I don't obey man-made rituals. In short, I don't have to be a 24 hour hypocrite as they are, by professing the name of Christ, then coming here and behaving like intellectual street thugs following Satan, quite contrary to everything their Book of Mormon teaches, but they would not realise that, because they are too thick for such thoughts to penetrate their legalistic, Pharisaic brains.

What I find quite bemusing is that I was chastised for merely mentioning the name of FT's God incarnate, the FARMS intellectual thug, who they call the "Great One". Jesus Christ is not the Great One in their minds, and it shows.

Just watch how many enemies they make for the church, then they will complain and blame "Satan".

This whole thread is an anomaly, but typical of what they have been doing since day one I arrived here. They taunt you, they tempt you, and when you "transgress" their sacred boundaries they accept no responsibility.

With people like Pent and FT in the church...does it really need enemies?

http://p079.ezboard.com/fpacumenispages ... D=17.topic

[_beastie]

Ah, yes, one of my "favorite" Pahoran posts:

In a discussion of MMM, Pahoran said to Analytics (Roger)

Of course, maybe they thought that the only civilian casualties would be Mormons.

And, given your demonstrated anti-Mormonism, you are undoubtedly okay with that.

Even given the fact that Pahoran does not use profanity, he is still the most profane poster I've ever met.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

I have some ideas as to what characteristics identify this subset of apologists, but I'm wondering if you have noticed the same thing.

Here are some things off the top of my head:

- Usually doesn't address the argument, only criticizes the arguer
- Claims to have answered questions they haven't
- Justify their behavior by claiming it's the same as exmos, but criticizing it in apostates anyway
- Actually, you can make a blanket statement: hypocrites
- They claim to be interested in exmo bad behavior, but it seems like they're more interested in exhibiting bad behavior themselves
- They actually think their qualifications indicate their arguments hold weight

And the #1 way to tell whether you're dealing with an angry apologist or not:

- Their arguments suck (assuming you can actually get one to come up with an argument)

Something I've noticed about angry apologists around here is that they frequently insult you, personally, Schmo, and say you contribute nothing of substance. Seems more like they just can't deal with your substance. Keep on doing what you're doing, maybe it will seep into their consciousness whether they know it or not.