Plutarch Wants to Debate McCue or Bachman

[_Ray A]

MM and Tal, your comments are appreciated. Maybe we can have some more dialogue on this in future. I think it will be very worthwhile. In the meantime I have to go for a bit, and I will reply to both posts when I get back. No harm in trying to learn from each other by voicing different viewpoints and seeing where we can find agreement. Thanks for your insights.

[_Tal Bachman]

Sure thing, Ray. Talk to you soon.

Tal

By the way, why hasn't anyone on here started teasing me about always posting in colour? I thought the Martha Stewart jokes would be immediate! Good form, chappies.

[_Mercury]

On any topic relating to the Latter-day Saint experience.

I thought Tal was vacuous and unanswerable and of questionable ethics.

You thought right, except let me point out that being "of questionable ethics" does not mean "immoral." I just need to know what ethical standard guides him.

P

that's a slippery answer. What Moral standard guides you, besides defending the indefensible?

[_Ray A]

I agree that there can be fallout as you described. The what-ifs are good to consider from both a moral and ethical standpoint -- but where is the evaluation of the benefit that kind of venting may do? You seem to think there is none or that it does not outweigh the impact of the slander and defamation.

MM, I think this is a good question. Has anyone done an evaluation? My concerns are only anecdotal, from what I have seen, and I presume yours are also only anecdotal. I'm not sure either how an evaluation can be done. What I would like to know is whether people really recover on RFM, or do some just get more angry? The RFM experience may be part of the process, I understand that, but I have also heard from many people, not just a few, that their experience on RFM was negative. The most frequent comment I've heard from these people is that there's too much "church bashing". Now this is only selective, from comments I've heard. Perhaps it may help some to an extent, but then they leave because of the negativity. The usual comparison made of RFM is that it's like Alcoholics Anonymous. But do people go to AA to vent? Do they start websites where people go to curse alcohol? I think it's a poor comparison, but I'm only raising this because that's the comparison. On the other hand I understand the comparison is meant to relate to ex-Mormons not being subjected to "faith-promoting" discussion, or any kind of testimony bearing. In other words exmos stay away from Mormonism or positive views on Mormonism, like reforming alcoholics stay away from alcohol. So if you can't say anything positive about the church on RFM (or maybe you can, but it must always be qualified), doesn't that naturally breed a negative atmosphere? And also a form of denial? Hey, I think the church did wonders for me. I read more than I ever would have without the church. I had the discipline to spend two years on a mission, quite an accomplishment, and I met thousands of new people from all walks of life. I was a bishop, and helped hundreds of people with problems. I got married and had five beautiful children, which I would not have done without Mormonism. Mormonism instilled values in me which I still hold today. And I do consider Mormonism to be a fascinating religion. Now if I said that on RFM, I'd be clobbered. Unless I qualified my statement with all the negatives. Don't you think it's a kind of phobia not to be able to say positive things? Surely people can't be that negative and depressing, can they? There's no room for balance on RFM, it seems to me that the culture there is "shoot the church, damn the church", it totally wrecked our lives. Really? You mean it did no good whatsoever in your lives? The bone I'm picking here with RFM is that it fosters only negativity towards the church. I went through a horrid divorce in 2000, lost everything I owned, and was left bankrupt and deprived of my children for months. So what was I supposed to do, go on a Recovering From Divorce site and curse my ex-wife, the corrupt lawyers, the court system, and never say anything positive about my marriage or my ex-wife? Would venting solve anything? It might to some extent, and I vented to friends, or people who had been through similar experiences, but what do you think happens when people constantly dwell on the negatives? They become negative, and the negativity is reinforced among the group, to the point where you wonder why anyone gets married at all, or has children, those "child support liabilities". Do you think they might just need some perspective? And sure, vent by all means, but can't we say anything positive as well? People can fall into a hell hole of negativity if they can't express both the good and the bad. It's called acknowledgement. Balance. Perspective. "We understand how you feel buddy, we really do, but MOVE ON, you have a whole new life ahead of you."

Now maybe the purpose of RFM is to allow venting so people can move on, but I see long time critics still there canning the hell out of Mormonism. They are not there for "recovery", MM, they are there to cut down the church, it's called revenge! Not "venting". It's called "I want to see this parasite religion washed off the earth", not taking into account that millions of Mormons do find happiness in their religion.

I know a lot of people on RfM who will post about their own struggles but won't post anything critical of the Church. I think they have drawn a moral line in the sand -- as it appears you have, too. Whatever the case -- and I value your insight in helping me develop my opinion on this -- the bigger question for me is whether the Church is doing anything to ameliorate these causes and effects or whether it is continuing its specious role of innocent bystander.

I fully realise that when one differs, especially in a staunch Mormon family, they are given the cold shoulder. Sometimes, not always, they are treated like spiritual lepers, and this is totally wrong for family situations. Mormons need to understand this better. The other frequent communication I have had from many exmos is that they were regarded by their active, believing family and friends at best with indifference. Attacking Mormons because of this is not the solution. It's understandable, but it's not a solution. The more you attack, the more you fuel those who attack you. The worst possible offence you can give to someone is to ignore them. Now I'm not suggesting one should not have a say, or should not relate their experience, but they can do so without demonising Mormonism, or making it out to be a "dangerous cult", because it's not a dangerous cult. If you want to see where the real danger is, look at some of the Islamic fundamentalists. You know, those people who fly planes into buildings and want to rule the world. While you attack Mormonism the acolytes of Allah are creeping in through your back door. Did Mormonism turn you into a theocrat? Some kind of monster? Of course not. Should you be any different to currently active Mormons? Sure, it may have given you exclusive views and made you feel spiritually superior. In fact I remember one of my daughters saying that as an active Mormon she always felt "better than others". And while this is not admirable, it's certainly not a threat to the world. Mormons aren't the only ones who feel superior for having "God's truth". And if you sincerely believe that they don't have "God's truth", then you should not attack them, if anything you should pity them for delusion.

What is "recovery"? How did you cope with the your feelings? Do our various support systems help us or fail us and how?

My "recovery" never took place. I walked away from the church of my own volition in 1987, therefore I didn't need to recover from anything. It was my choice to walk, it made me feel freer and happier. So why would I be angry?? Doctrinal problems deeply disturbed me for about four years before I walked, but that was not the only reason I walked. I just found the LDS lifestyle mind numbing, rote, boring, repetitive, and I felt like a "robot", and I KNEW I could not possibly live like this for the rest of my life. I am sure I may have gone inactive even without the doctrinal/historical problems, but they helped me to walk even faster. But I also understand that this is not common, and many others were happy in the lifestyle but felt genuinely disturbed by doctrinal/historical problems and felt they had no choice. I subsequently returned to the church many times, mainly because I felt an obligation to my family. And in 1999-2000 I was even a Gospel Doctrine teacher who didn't believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon, known to both my bishop and stake president. I returned to try to save my marriage, which was on the rocks. So all through the years I felt admiration for the LDS lifestyle, I had no anger. My anger only came on from going on the net. I tried to explain why I found it difficult to accept Book of Mormon historicity, and was hoping for sensible feedback, on an LDS forum. I did this in total innocence, and I ended up being called, among many other things, a "son of perdition". Why? Because I doubted Book of Mormon historicity. Talk about the sledgehammer and fly. My middle name then was Korihor, by the way. Strange, because in real life I felt no anger and had good relationships with my Mormon friends. I admired their integrity and their helping me through divorce, the meals the Relief Society brought me when I was penniless and fighting court battles costing thousands. I got picked up and brought home from church, and invited to more dinners than I can count. I spent Xmas eve, the first family-less one in 22 years, with a kind Mormon family, who even bought me a present and made me feel like one of their family. I could never turn on these people. But the internet Mormons were a different breed. They savaged me. That's what led to me going on RFM in 2002, to "vent", not against the church, but mericless internet Mormons. I did criticise the church, but I did so because I wanted to hurt them, not the church.

But after some time on RFM I realised that these people did not share my admiration for the church, in "real life". My "internet Mormonism" was totally different to my "chapel Mormonism". I liked "chapel Mormons", but I was attacked by "internet Mormons". Probably because they didn't know me. So when I expressed my positive feelings for Mormons, and the Book of Mormon in a spiritual sense, because of my "real life" experiences, I was immediately shunned by RFM. There was no balance. This, I now understood, is a place where you can't say anything positive about Mormonism unless you add a qualifier - that's it's total ****. That I could not do. As they say, the rest is history. This RFM place had no balance, no room to acknowledge that Mormonism has done many good things in my life, and I was not prepared to demonise it all the time. I did say many negative things, because of my bad experiences with "internet Mormons", and I do feel that the church can exercise too much control on your life, and I appreciate what exmos go through, very much so, but I have moved on from those negative feelings. You know, they say there's no one so intolerable as a reformed smoker. So I fully realise I can be accused of hypocrisy. All I am saying now, is don't let anger or hate consume you. And think carefully about what motivates attacking Mormonism.

What you see as hate I see as hurt. We'll just have to disagree on that.

I see both.

"I hate the Mormon Church" is rarely said and when it is, we all know that is exactly venting. Few people advocate any kind of physical harm -- and those that do seem to be quickly addressed, in my humble opinion. Emotional harm is often discussed and sometimes advocated. Maybe it's part of recovery to want restitution for real or imagined injuries. I'm not an expert but I don't see a lot of Mormon experts on there working without exposing themselves helping get people better, do you?

I am not a "Mormon expert", but I do understand rejection. I do understand how one feels to be excluded, as if disbelief is some kind of disease. I experienced this initially with my "real life" Mormon friends, but once they understood that I was firm in my views, they accepted me. Maybe their hopes of reclaiming me to orthodoxy were far-fetched, but they knew I accepted and even respected their belief, because I was once a TBM, but could no longer be one. As a GD teacher I thought the "only true church" stuff was baloney, and I said so. A counselor in the bishopric took grave offence at this, and stated it from the pulpit. He thought I was too heretical, and should not be teaching, but after I walked for the last time, in 2001, after failing to save my marriage, he was the one who released me, at my request, and I am told that he wept when doing so. Are these the people exmos criticise? How can I criticise them? Despite their orthodoxy, I see such great humanity in them.

I don't know what recovery is. I still spend a lot of time thinking about it. I do see a shrink and again I ask, "Where is the Mormon Church in all this?" Where are the professional shrinks helping people get out? Their lay clergy is not trained to help someone exit, much less deal with mental stress caused by the dissonance they may be experiencing. For the longest time the Church excommunicated people who had doubts or wanted out of the Church and you and I both know that excommunication is considered the strongest form of punishment that a person can receive. How helpful is that in defusing anger?

I know. You feel you can't validly dissent, and there must be a punishment for dissent, or differences of opinion. But whose weakness is that? yours, or the church's? It's like saying, "if you don't agree with me, I'm going to bullwhip you!" Immediately they lost, you won. David Wright plead for leniency, to be able to remain while disbelieving Book of Mormon historicity, and they said NO, and they excommunicated him. Now Wright finds Mormonism irrevelant. Whose fault is that? It is the fault of leaders, and their strict interpretation of "orthodoxy". I submit that Brigham Young had far more heretical ideas than Wright, which are now rejected by the church.

I don't know what the "even" means. We're all just people, Ray. I don't want to hurt any Mormons but I don't think RfM should cause them (or you and Simon) the kind of displeasure it seems to. The moment someone on there starts planning an act that violates the law, I will be standing next to you questioning its value as a recovery tool.

I appreciate your sentiment. Maybe I've been too harsh on exmos, and judged them from my perspective, and not theirs. That's why I'm trying to dialogue with you and Tal, and any others who wish to join. If I sound self-righteous, it's not because I want to be, but I want to understand some more. I want to hear your contrary opinions, and hope that some healing process can evolve. I know this may sound corny, but quoting from the Desiderata, "you are a child of the universe, and you have a right to be here", and you have every right to express your opinions, and to feel how you do. I am prepared to hear your opinions, and if necessary change some of mine. Life is short, but every person has the right to choose how they shall live, without condemnation. I would like to understand you some more, because I never grew up in a Mormon family, and though I understand rejection, I cannot fathom my family turning against me merely because I choose not to believe in the same religion they do. What does that say? Do they really love you, or do they love you because of what you believe?

Lashing out at Mormons isn't going to solve this, MM. And that's why I have no faith in the RFM website. FAIR is pretty much the same, but at least they allow some selective dissenting views. I have been at "war" with exmos for a long time, and I really do think some criticisms are overboard, but Im prepared to listen. I just don't want to trade one dogma for another, and I found the dogma on RFM just as bad, or worse, than what I experienced among Mormons. What I am saying is this: To come to terms with your Mormon experience, you have to acknowledge both good and bad, and to deny either is to engage in self-deception. You cannot be fully at peace until you acknowledge all the experiences in your life. I may have missed your posts acknowledging this, so excuse me if I did.

Note to Tal: Will reply to your post later.

[MODERATOR NOTE: Please, please don't use the "S" word here in the Terrestrial Forum. If you must use that word, please do so in the Telestial Forum only. Thanks!]

[_Tal Bachman]

Hey Ray

I've seen lots of people on RFM defend the church against stupid allegations. The latest one was the near unanimous condemnation of a recent Exmormon Conference lecture alleging widespeared Satanic ritual child abuse. There was an instant demand for evidence, and since none was forthcoming, most posters declared that such charges were irresponsible and were an embarrassment to the conference.

One thing, Ray - you seem to find the behaviour of other ex-Mormons distasteful or "wrong". But not everyone is like you. Not everyone can just walk away and seemingly be instantly over it. That they are not you is not a reason for you to criticize them, anymore than you not being me is a reason for me to criticize you.

By the way, one thing I didn't respond to in my earlier post, is that I don't think the Mormon church is wrong about everything, and in fact, quite a few times I've written about positives in my church experience. It is just that, as I said, what good there is in church is not the property of the church, and neither can that good mitigate the fact that Mormonism makes all the demands that a "one true church" could be expected to make - including, by the way, the theological demand that its members be at heart theocrats, which you denied above - while not being any such thing. As such, it deserves to be exposed for what it is, just as any other fraudulent organization does. People - many people - have died for Joseph Smith's lies, including two elders just north of me while I was on my mission to Argentina. And some of us feel that not one more life should be risked for a fraud - A FRAUD - no matter how fun the picnics were.

[_Runtu]

Excellent post, Tal. If it is a fraudulent organization (and it is), it deserves to be exposed. We would owe it to others to prevent them from getting involved in a manipulative, authoritarian organization that is based on deceit. But to listen to some of the people around here, we are simply motivated by hate and intolerance.

If it is indeed God's true church, then nothing we say or do is going to have the least effect on it, is it?

Oh, and the picnics weren't that fun, anyway.

[_moksha]

We would owe it to others to prevent them from getting involved in a manipulative, authoritarian organization...

The Republican Party???

[_Ray A]

Tal, I've finally got some time to address your post.

Some folks, for example, were molested as youths by bishops or Scout leaders, reported that abuse to an ecclesiastical superior, and not only was nothing ever done, but they were not taken seriously or were even told to keep quiet, etc. In short, when they went to the only people they knew of who could help, those people sided with the perpetrators. Some people feel that any religion which is only now starting to implement protocols for squashing "let's keep the church looking good" molestation cover-ups really has a problem. I know that's kind of an extreme example, but all sorts of things like that have happened. I know of a few RFM ladies who married men that their bishops knew were gay, but the bishops encouraged the marriage anyway without telling the naïve girls, on the supposition that marriage would "cure gayness". Then, ten years later, these women with three or four little kids, find out their whole marriages have been - well, something other than what they thought, and to be honest, what they deserved. And their husbands leave them, for men. So sometimes people pop off. I imagine they might feel as you would, if you'd been sodomized routinely by a teacher at an all-male boarding school, and when you told the headmaster, he promoted your abuser and told you in effect to keep quiet - which you did. Later you'd feel rotten, wouldn't you? You might say that your school was a sick place and speak ill of it. And frankly, you'd be right - just like many RFM posters are right.

This is a good point I had not really considered.

About what you appear to think is a "gotcha" retort to ex-Mormons who say people must be "braindead" to believe some of this stuff (which I haven't heard ever put that strongly, but...): it's no "gotcha" at all, because every former Mormon is referring to himself as well as everyone else when they say that. Do you not understand that it is embarrassing to realize what nonsense you once believed in? Or that it can even be horrifying to contemplate what you might have done "if the prophet had asked"? It's like waking up and finding out you just fried someone to death in those Stanley Milgram experiments.

Well I did feel some embarrassment back in the 80s, so I know what you're saying. I stopped reading the Book of Mormon to my children in the 1980s. On one occasion I was reading it to them and felt the stories were not historical, and I didn't want to teach my children this as history at such a young age. I was mature enough to see the spiritual value in the Book of Mormon, which I have always spoken highly of, but I felt it was wrong to foist this on children, until they got old enough to decide for themselves. In 1994 I moved further to the non-historical view, so I was glad I didn't teach them it was history. Adults are a different story.

That embarrassment, as well as the pain of realizing you were so wrong about so much, and all the difficulties that realization can produce in your life, is also what accounts for humour about the church, including caustic or sarcastic humour. Sometimes, to just have a chuckle about it all makes the project of trying to assemble a life just after finding out you spent years in a cult you had no idea was a cult, a bit easier. Does that not make sense to you?

It does, but as I said before I think sometimes it can go too far. I'm not the thought-police, I'm only voicing an opinion. I really couldn't care less if the caustic or sarcastic humour continues, but it is sometimes offensive to Mormons. Now if I truly wanted to have dialogue with Mormons, which I do (and former Mormons), I would respect their sacred beliefs. I mean things like the temple, temple clothing, etc. That's mainly what I'm talking about. I remember while on FAIR a Mormon lady being offended at blonde jokes. I posted several, because my daughter happens to be blonde and likes blonde jokes. Then we can go in to the Jewish and black jokes, some of which I find hilarous, but I would not post those on a forum. I'm not into political correctness, but even the politically incorrect sometimes have to draw a line. So I don't know if you see where I'm coming from. We all have things we hold in high esteem, and we don't like to see those things the subject of sarcastic humour.

I only wish that the lyrics you quote from "I Am A Child of God" "equalled" Mormonism. Of course they do not, and to present it as a symbol of Mormonism I think is very deceptive and unbecoming. If it is a symbol of anything Mormon, it is only of its patina. The rest of the story is hinted at in fact by other songs in the primary hymnal, which point to the far more disturbing elements of Mormonism. "Follow the Prophet" might be the best example of the underlying potentially "Jonestown-style" psycho-social dynamics inherent in any authoritarian loyalty cult, and in this case, Mormonism. It might be alright to chant "follow the prophet" if the man reputed to be a prophet actually was a "prophet", and actually was being prohibited by an omnipotent deity from "leading the church astray". But Ray, that is not the case, not with Hinckley, nor as far as I can tell, with any other self-styled "holy man" on this planet. Because there is no reason to believe any mortal is being prohibited by God from "leading us astray", the sooner individual human beings cease allowing their own individual consciences to be subsumed into someone else's, the better off I suggest we will all be.

I decided a long time ago that I don't follow the "follow the prophet line", because anyone who has studied Mormon history can clearly see how many times the prophets have been wrong, and even contradicted one another. So what I do is ignore things like that, and take the good that I see in Mormonism, and I see a lot of good. I still enjoy hearing the old hymns, and I think they are inspirational. Of all people, Tal, you should know the inspiration that music brings. So I guess you could say I "compartmentalise", and I remember the good things in Mormonism. I have no qualms in saying that I still sometimes feel an emotional attachment to Mormonism. One thing I am certain of, though, is that I will never go back to the church.

One final point on sarcasm. Sarcasm can be an effective tool for making very serious points. Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" is a good example, as well as here in North America, the TV show "The Colbert Report" (in which Colbert is not earnest for a single moment, ever), editorial cartoons, etc. That "some people" are offended by "some sarcasm" goes without saying, since "some people" are offended by anything. That is no reason to stop making serious points, either with the use of sarcasm or without. Ideological fanatics, as you may have noticed in your local Muslim population, are always hyper-sensitive to being offended. Frankly, that might be all the more reason to offend or try to disperse them, since ideological fanaticism almost always sucks. And I would say further that any good produced or championed by some group of ideological fanatics is never the sole property of that group - but often, their lunacy is, making the ideological fanaticism itself at least superfluous, and at most, worthy of immediate disposal. Virtue, after all, in addition to being is its own reward, also exists independently, regardless of any organization's attempt to appropriate it.

I only saw Colbert once, when he interviewed Richard Dawkins, so I take your point there. While I do criticise some Muslim behaviour, I would not be sarcastic about Muhammad. I will point out things I find offensive about Muhammad, or Islam, for example female circumcision, BUT, if I'm going to get my point across to Muslims, or anyone, do you think they will listen to me if I make Muhammad the butt of constant sarcasm? It is true that some Muslims, not all, are hypersensitive to any criticism. However, if I want to make a serious point about Islam, or Mormonism, even the more moderate ones will not listen if they know I'm just a sarcastic debunker of their religion. This is why Mormons don't take RFM seriously, and sometimes return the sarcasm. I don't see this as a way for profitable dialogue. I can't imagine RFM being any different than it is, all I'm saying is that RFM and it's concept of "recovery" will never be taken seriously by Mormons as long as the sarcasm continues. Again, I'm not the thought-police, I'm only stating what I feel the situation is. I don't go on RFM and post because even as an ex-Mormon I find some of the sentiments expressed about the church to be below the belt. For me, there is a line.

It is true that sometimes sarcasm is a very counterproductive tool. For example, you would be certain I was exaggerating if I mentioned how many dozens of emails I've gotten, and RFM posts I've seen, over the past few years, of Mormons who attribute their first jolt out of their stupour (so to speak) to the snide sarcasm of two FAIR posters in particular, one of whom posts here now. No doubt members will enjoy imagining that their subsequent apostacies might have occured anyway, and that these unusually unpleasant church defenders only hastened along the inevitable. I am not so sure about that - I get the impression that a sarcasm-free attempt to resolve sincere concerns on the FAIR boards might have gone a long way. In any case, partly as a result of the rancour and sarcasm employed by folks who appear to be labouring under the delusion that they are doing far more good than harm to the Mormon cause, many dozens of individuals have left the church forever. (But actually it's probably far more - it's only many dozens that I personally know about). This (plus the nearly inevitable lameness of apologetic arguments themselves) is why over the past three years I have steered countless wondering Mormons over to the FARMS and FAIR boards. And I have never heard of one single person who I recommended that to, who didn't come back even more convinced there was something profoundly wrong or untrue about Joseph Smith's church. The arguments suck, and the arguers themselves sound like loons, and often, rancourous loons. It makes it pretty obvious.[/color]

I presume you're talking about Pahoran. I clashed with Pahoran on ZLMB until he drove me nuts. I also clashed with Dan Peterson and Juliann, often. I know what you're saying. When I went on ZLMB, this must be around 2003, I felt in a most gracious mood towards Mormons. I wanted to put out the Olive Leaf and smoke peace pipe and have open dialogue. Obviously what I said must have ruffled feathers, and I can't even remember what I wrote, but before I knew it I was locked into terminal battles that would eventually see me getting banned from ZLMB. I was definitely very angry, and the irony I found was that I originally went on only wanting to express honest opinions. I did not want to ridicule Mormons, but I even ended up cursing the temple and posting some mean stuff, which got me banned. So there you go, I have been excommunicated from both ex-Mormon and pro-Mormon boards.


Now on the question of all those emails you got, complaining about these Mormon posters, it may have had some effect on their decisions, because I know how I felt after the ZLMB debacle, but even that would not stop me weighing the issues aside from that treatment. And why someone would let a person, or persons, decide such important long-term questions, is not within my understanding. I would say that they had already been leaning to leaving the church, most likely. I went on FAIR in mid-2004, not after long personal deliberations, because both Pahoran and Juliann were there, so was Dan Peterson. Former "enemies" from ZLMB, but I was more interested in the subject - Mormonism. And I wanted to resolve outstanding issues, and I knew there were many fine scholars on FAIR. After an initial reproof from a mod, about my speculating whether Joseph Smith masturbated, I had no problem on FAIR. At that time, and until very recently, I found the debates invigourating and a great learning experience, and I never clashed with Pahoran, and even became friendly with Dan. In short, I learned by then how not to offend Mormons, at least not in sarcastic ways, so I must have learned something from my ZLMB experience, and I wanted in particular to discuss the Book of Mormon, which was my main attraction to Mormonism, nay, my only one.

Maybe the "arguments suck", and yes I do think Pahoran agitates many people on FAIR, including the mods sometimes. But you know what you're looking at in Pahoran - a Mormon Terminator created by attacks on the church. I think he was affected by this long before I got to ZLMB, so I avoided clashing with him on FAIR. We have never been "buddies", and we are still not "buddies", but I also understand how he feels after long exposure to attacks on the church. Even if you think it's all silliness, it's not silliness to them. And by calling it silliness you also alienate many more moderate Mormons, or liberals, or "Liahonas", who still adhere to Mormonism but have anything but cut-and-dried orthodox beliefs. Maybe they might just be the ones who want to dialogue with ex-Mormons, because the TBMs certainly don't, but if they're faced with a barrage of sarcasm and told they live in a "stupor", and are idiots to continue attending church - you're going to lose their sympathy as well.

The bottom line is this: People have to make the moves to stop the attacks, or the war and division will never end. It will be like the Middle East between Mormons and ex-Mormons, and you know the old saying, there are two sides to every story. We are all sensitive to personal attacks. I would also like to see balance on this forum, I don't want it to become Mormon or ex-Mormon, because if it did become one or the other, I will do what I have always done, find another pasture. I'm the "middle man", and have been heavily criticised for it, because I've been attacked by Mormons and ex-Mormons, and I have friends and enemies on both sides. The partisans always attack me, and maybe I'm fighting a losing battle.

You've mentioned before about your loss of faith, but I don't think I've ever read your story in full. Maybe you can point me to where it is. Do you think attacks on the church, as occur on RFM, would have given you pause to think more about Mormonism? Maybe it did, I don't know. Or do you think well-reasoned arguments from informed and balanced sources would have been more likely to have done the trick?

[_Ray A]

I've seen lots of people on RFM defend the church against stupid allegations. The latest one was the near unanimous condemnation of a recent Exmormon Conference lecture alleging widespeared Satanic ritual child abuse. There was an instant demand for evidence, and since none was forthcoming, most posters declared that such charges were irresponsible and were an embarrassment to the conference.

Well that's impressive.

One thing, Ray - you seem to find the behaviour of other ex-Mormons distasteful or "wrong". But not everyone is like you. Not everyone can just walk away and seemingly be instantly over it. That they are not you is not a reason for you to criticize them, anymore than you not being me is a reason for me to criticize you.

By the way, one thing I didn't respond to in my earlier post, is that I don't think the Mormon church is wrong about everything, and in fact, quite a few times I've written about positives in my church experience. It is just that, as I said, what good there is in church is not the property of the church, and neither can that good mitigate the fact that Mormonism makes all the demands that a "one true church" could be expected to make - including, by the way, the theological demand that its members be at heart theocrats, which you denied above - while not being any such thing. As such, it deserves to be exposed for what it is, just as any other fraudulent organization does. People - many people - have died for Joseph Smith's lies, including two elders just north of me while I was on my mission to Argentina. And some of us feel that not one more life should be risked for a fraud - A FRAUD - no matter how fun the picnics were.

Well, I'll put it to you this way, Tal. If you look at it that way, millions of people have died for what others consider frauds.
But you are looking at this subjectively, "you should not have to die for what I consider a fraud!" Those two missionaries died because of what they believed in. You know, each to her/his own. However, if you feel you have a mission to warn others, then do so. The claim of fraud is frequently mentioned by some FAIR posters, but it does not rattle Mormons. In Australia 19,000 people die every year from smoking-related diseases. On every cigarette pack there are graphic warnings and pictures. My mother smoked from the age of 14 until she died at nearly 80, and she once told me, "if I can't smoke, I would rather not live". People choose what brings them their "bliss", as Joseph Campbell called it. "Follow your bliss", are the words he used. Campbell, probably more than anyone else, realised the mythologies behind religions, but he never felt the urge to warn anyone.

[_Ray A]

Dear Mods:

I was given this warning on this thread:

[MODERATOR NOTE: Please, please don't use the "S" word here in the Terrestrial Forum. If you must use that word, please do so in the Telestial Forum only. Thanks!]

Is the moderation here selective? Have a look around the Terrestrial forum and see how the "F" word is being plastered every where by "coffeecat". Does she have some kind of poster immunity?