beastie wrote:One thing to consider in regards to the attention that DCP, Juliann, and others often receive (Pahoran, for example) is that this may not solely be due to their positions as apologists, but rather due to their own internet personnae. If they create internet personalities that are rude and dismissive with a very quick trigger finger, then they can expect more negative attention. There are other apologists that are also well known that are not constantly talked about. Doesn't that make you suspect the issue is the personality, not the status as apologist? (I will say DCP may be the one exception to that, apparently due to his position as editor of FARMs and author of reviews, he does seem to personify apologia in general for many exmormons, which I have never particularly related to.) Charity sometimes gets negative press here, and it isn't because she's a believer or apologist. It's because she is rude, while pretending not to be. Human beings sniff out hypocrisy and love to point it out in the "other" tribe, while tending to ignore it in our own tribe. I don't think that is a result of exmormonism in particular, but rather of human nature in general. For example, Kevin Hill used to post quite a bit on Z, but I can't recall any instance in which he was personally attacked by exmormons in the fashion that Juliann and DCP are. (I'm sure he's been vehemently disagreed with, but he doesn't create a personnae that invites personal attacks) While I am aggressive in some of my critique of Brant Gardner's apologia, he isn't generally attacked the way DCP and Juliann are, even when he was a frequent poster. Neither was Ben McGuire. See my point? With the possible exception of DCP as I noted above, I think the TBMs who are regularly castigated attract so much negative attention due to their unpleasant posting styles.
I think it's a point worth noting. Perhaps some exmo posting styles also draw ire. It cuts both ways, I think. And blogs and threads dedicated to exposing people, or sarcastic comments, or mind-reading, don't help. That draws the ire of some, and you've seen the replies here.
beastie wrote:Ray, You can find Biblical scriptures to support just about whatever you want. But different sects handle this differently, as has been noted above (by personal experience, mine and others). Despite what the Bible may say about how to treat unbelievers, in general, it is only very conservative "one true" type of sects that actually enact this type of behavior.
Mainstream protestants, in general, don't care at all what particular kind of Christian church you attend. They don't care if you leave one sect and join another. You're not attacked or vilified. You're not seen as an "apostate" at all, in fact.
When I was growing up, my family tried several different protestant denominations. As far as I know, not even the conservative believers from the Church of God (in which my mother grew up) viewed any of us as some sort of apostate. When we moved or decided the particular denomination didn't fit for some reason, no one we left behind vilified us or taught myths about "why people leave".
It's just the religions that have some form of "one true" that usually engage in this behavior. in my opinion, that is due to the fact that if human beings are going to claim they have the "one true" whatever, then they must also preach that this "one truism" is accessible to any sincere seeker. (in general, with some exceptions) So there must be a reason why people who once accepted the "one true" now rejects it - and it can't reflect poorly on the "one true". Most protestant churches don't have the "one true" attitude to begin with.
add on - in rereading your response, you probably understand this already. Sorry for repeating myself.
I do disagree with you, however, on whether or not the LDS church could change this. They've changed other teachings that were just as fundamental, in the past. It may be hard to visualize what changes would have to take place for this to happen, but I don't think it is impossible. Unlikely in our lifetimes, but I'd guess likely in the lifetimes of our children.
Hi Beastie,
I don't' want to get far off topic but it brought to mind a question I had wanted to ask you a while back. Have you ever seen any other faith that takes it personal when somebody discusses their church history? I have never seen Catholics as a whole get hostile or personally offended when people discuss the negative aspects in the history of the Catholic church, but yet Mormons (especially apologists) are unable to discuss anything negative in their church history. It's always personal for LDS. Just something I have never seen with any other religion but Mormonism and wondered what your experience has been since you were not raised in Mormon culture.
"Happiness is the object and design of our existence... That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another." Joseph Smith
Ray A wrote:I think it's a point worth noting. Perhaps some exmo posting styles also draw ire. It cuts both ways, I think. And blogs and threads dedicated to exposing people, or sarcastic comments, or mind-reading, don't help. That draws the ire of some, and you've seen the replies here.
I agree, Ray. I'm reminded of the star-bellied sneetches. It's just not productive to keep giving as good as you get. Of course, where the church is concerned, it doesn't help much to be nice, unfortunately (see Lavina Anderson, for example).
Runtu wrote:Ray, do you have any idea how ironic your suggestion is? Do you not know who runs the Mormon Alliance and what happened to her?
It's not ironic, I'm well aware of what happened to Lavina Fielding Anderson. In fact, I communicated with her extensively in the 1990s, and she told me all of her feelings. She was angry, but has a firm belief in Mormonism. Perhaps her belief enables her to point out problems, without attacking the church at the gutter level.
While the leaders don't listen to her, many have read the case histories of the Mormon Alliance, including me, as I have two volumes. I am prepared to read what they have to say. I am not prepared to take RFM seriously.
Runtu wrote:Ray, do you have any idea how ironic your suggestion is? Do you not know who runs the Mormon Alliance and what happened to her?
It's not ironic, I'm well aware of what happened to Lavina Fielding Anderson. In fact, I communicated with her extensively in the 1990s, and she told me all of her feelings. She was angry, but has a firm belief in Mormonism. Perhaps her belief enables her to point out problems, without attacking the church at the gutter level.
While the leaders don't listen to her, many have read the case histories of the Mormon Alliance, including me, as I have two volumes. I am prepared to read what they have to say. I am not prepared to take RFM seriously.
I don't take RfM "seriously" either. It is not aimed at effecting change in the LDS church. Its aim is to serve as a safe haven for those who are in shock, angry, and hurting. You may not see it, but I've seen a lot of people who were helped greatly by RfM. It's not all anger and gutter language and hate. There's some of that, obviously, but there is a lot of good done there.
I think Lavina is fooling herself if she believes she's bringing about any change through her organization. I wish I were wrong, but I don't think so.
Runtu wrote:I think Lavina is fooling herself if she believes she's bringing about any change through her organization. I wish I were wrong, but I don't think so.
This is the point beastie disagrees with me about. She thinks change is possible. I doubt it. And I think the evidence is there in the lack of response to Anderson. I was only making a suggestion, but I really don't think it will have much impact with the church leaders. It may, however, create a less hostile base for discussing exmo problems.
Runtu wrote:I think Lavina is fooling herself if she believes she's bringing about any change through her organization. I wish I were wrong, but I don't think so.
This is the point beastie disagrees with me about. She thinks change is possible. I doubt it. And I think the evidence is there in the lack of response to Anderson. I was only making a suggestion, but I really don't think it will have much impact with the church leaders. It may, however, create a less hostile base for discussing exmo problems.
I agree. Change in the church never comes in response to the needs of the members.
Runtu, I have also long expressed concern about the excommunication of David Wright. Cases like this get my attention, and he was very articulate in defending himself, all to no avail, however. I think this was a bad move on the part of the church. Again, he was a believer of sorts, and wanted to stay in the church. In spite of not believing that the Book of Mormon is history, he did have great respect for it. He was a liberal in thought and belief, but the excommunications have not been consistent either. For example McMurrin had a similar outlook, but much less sympathetic and even publicly criticised the leaders, especially Packer and Benson, yet retained his membership. The Seventh East press published his interview with Blake Ostler, and it was scathing in parts. But again, in spite of his agnosticism, McMurrin was very well versed in Mormon theology and has written some significant books on Mormonism.
Ha, many early LDS would never, never have believed that the church would stop practicing polygamy, either. And yet it happened. The church survived, but changed. Change is possible - in fact, I've been told over and over that is one of the strengths of the LDS church. All it would take is one prophet to speak differently about the subject, and thousands of Mormon minds would change along with his. (not all, of course, but many)
I'm not saying this change is destined or inevitable, it might not be. The church might retrench itself and become even more hostile to apostates. I'm just saying I think it's possible.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
beastie wrote:Ha, many early LDS would never, never have believed that the church would stop practicing polygamy, either. And yet it happened. The church survived, but changed. Change is possible - in fact, I've been told over and over that is one of the strengths of the LDS church. All it would take is one prophet to speak differently about the subject, and thousands of Mormon minds would change along with his. (not all, of course, but many)
I'm not saying this change is destined or inevitable, it might not be. The church might retrench itself and become even more hostile to apostates. I'm just saying I think it's possible.
Beastie, polygamy was controversial from the start, as was the black ban. There are no scriptures supporting a ban on blacks as the church advocated it. In fact, the Book of Mormon was contrary to this idea.
33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile. 2 Ne.26
There is one revelation on "celestial polygamy". And again, Jacob 2 is contrary to this.
There is one way the church may become more hostile to apostates, and that is if they keep being attacked.
Last edited by _Ray A on Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:02 am, edited 1 time in total.