beastie wrote:I'd really like you to read and consider the statements in the article I linked earlier about how the internet, in general, tends to encourage bad behavior. I think this is an important bit of context you are ignoring in your reaction to the bad behavior of exmormons. This isn't a phenomenon limited to exmormons. It's all over the internet. Does it bode future waves of violence all over?
If you think religious boards get nasty, you should visit some political boards. I briefly participated on one during the first contested Bush election, and could only stand it a week or two. People were incredibly rude, aggressive, and quick to personally attack the "other" side. But I never imagined that this was some sort of omen that republicans were going to start engaging in acts of violence against democrats, or vice versa. I realized that it was a volatile subject and people had strong feelings that were easier to express with greater negativity on the internet than in real life. I think it could help you to keep these things in perspective by remembering the same is always going to be true in discussions of religion between current and exbelievers. It's a volatile topic, people have strong feelings, and it's easier to be nasty on the internet. This is not an excuse, it is background information that one should consider in evaluating these conversations.
My perceptions of this are perhaps marred by what I've experienced in recent months. As I mentioned, after I started working as a cab driver my eyes opened to what's really going on in society. I see violence nearly every night. These are ordinary people who hold white collar jobs, labouring jobs, university students, and during the daytime you'd trust them with your children, they come across so nice. Over the past 30 years I've watched society go downhill. What was once a relatively peaceful city is now infested with crime, drugs and drunkenness. Youth have few scruples about anything anymore. I know and talk to people who will now not go out at night.
Now laugh all you wish, but I am genuinely fearful at what I see. This is not just an "Internet phenomenon". People are scared! This is not just verbal expression, this is physical expression. I find it difficult to find a man or woman I talk to in my job who will disagree with my assessments that society is in peril, and we are losing something. But many are not seeing this. When I was locked away in my previous cushy job and not exposed to this I was, frankly, naïve. The thing is, we are accepting it more and more, and becoming hardened to it. When I was a teenager girls hardly ever swore (I'm showing my age), yet I watched two teenage girls, no more than 15-16, bash an itinerant until his face was a mass of blood. This would have been unthinkable in the early 1970s. Think of the James Bulger killing by boys not even teenagers.
To say that people are merely "expressing themselves" on the Internet does not satisfy me. We cannot, in any case, judge whether it is the Internet, because the Internet wasn't around in the 1970s. I have observed too, the vicious anti-Mormon expressions on the Internet, and I believe, rightly or wrongly, this has become worse in just the seven years I've been on the Net.
My question was: How far will this go? From Wiki:
Today, the term is primarily used as a descriptor for persons and publications that oppose The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, although its precise scope has been the subject of some debate. It is used by some to describe anything perceived as critical of the LDS Church,[5] whereas others reserve it for critical persons or publications who enlist dishonest or inflammatory rhetoric.[6] Siding with the latter, less-inclusive understanding of the term, Latter-day Saint scholar William O. Nelson suggests in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism that the term includes "any hostile or polemic opposition to Mormonism or to the Latter-day Saints, such as maligning the founding prophet, his successors, or the doctrines or practices of the Church. Though sometimes well intended, anti-Mormon publications have often taken the form of invective, falsehood, demeaning caricature, prejudice, and legal harassment, leading to both verbal and physical assault."[7]
From an apologist I fear to name because his name is already mud to ex-Mormons (Louis Midgley):
How extensive is anti-Mormon literature? Tolbert has shown that in 1987 thirty-six different periodicals (that is, newsletters, magazines, journals, tabloids, and so forth) were published by countercult ministries. Fifteen of these were focused primarily on Latter-day Saints. He also found that for one year—1987—
Mormonism, with 333 articles, is by far the most analyzed religion in this literature, more than tripling Jehovah's Witness studies (90 articles). Jehovah's Witness and New Age/Occult studies (57) form a second tier of literature after which there is another significant drop to "cults." Following cults, in general, (25) and the RLDS (16) the decline is slow but steady.17
http://farms.BYU.edu/display.php?table=review&id=282Just quoting Midgley here gives me the shivers because I know how most feel about any "Mopologist", which itself is a term of derision and scorn. But too bad, more from Midgley:
Anti-Mormons sometimes insist that they "are not 'attacking' good Mormon people,"147 thus following Hugh Nibley's Rule 5 of "How to Write an Anti-Mormon Book: those embarking on a career in anti-Mormonism ought to "proclaim [their] love for the Mormon people" before insisting that no mercy should be shown such an anti-Christian faith.148 Hence anti-Mormons insist that "the Mormon 'gospel'" is "black and corrupt,"149 and that Latter-day Saint "claims are spurious and empty,"150 "a gigantic hoax,"151 a "gigantic fraud,"152 a "deliberate attempt to deceive,"153 and so forth. It is thus easy for demagogues like Walter Martin to slip from moaning about "The Maze of Mormonism" into murmuring about the "menace of Mormonism" or the "Mormon menace."154 Hence evangelicals must be "awake to the dangers before [them]: the cultist wolf is at the door of the sheepfold."155 All must "realize the danger"156 presented by the "alarming spread and popularity of the Mormon religion."157 Why?
The reason, again according to Walter Martin, is that "Mormonism constitutes an immense threat to the Church of Jesus Christ of our era."158 "Of all the major cults . . . in . . . America," according to Martin, "none is more subtle or dangerous to the unwary soul than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."159 Hence, according to Martin, steps must be taken, which include "constant surveillance" of those "Mormons."160 And an "up-to-date and factual literature" attacking the Church of Jesus Christ must be provided,161 with Walter Martin, of course, busy selling this literature. Such a literature presumably would constitute a part of the "strong countermeasures" that are needed against the "threat of Mormonism."162
Then the secular anti-Mormons jump in:
With the growth of the internet, webblogs have arisen targeting Mormonism. There are some Evangelical Christian blogs, but most seem to be secular in nature, though often no less sensationalistic than the anti-cult sites. These sites generally do not deal with broader issues like the historicity of the Book of Mormon, but deal rather in personal attacks and bitter accusations. Many contributors cite that they felt lied to or offended by another member of the Church or that they consider Mormons to be foolish and superstitious. Conspicuous amongst their complaints are what they deride as group-think. Secular critics often accuse the Church of forcing conformity or discouraging freedom of thought and expression. All too frequently, these attacks become personal diatribes launched at leaders and defenders of the Mormon Church.
http://www.mormonwiki.com/Mormonism/Anti-MormonI do not think it at all unfair to say that Mormonism is one of the most attacked religions in America, and possibly the most attacked. Where is this all heading? Your guess may be good as mine, but I believe this is an unhealthy obsession.
From a report today, referring to the Cronulla riots in Sydney:
Jones show 'incited violence'
RADIO broadcaster Alan Jones broadcast material likely to encourage violence and vilify people of Middle Eastern descent in the lead-up to a Sydney race riot, the broadcasting regulator has found.
The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) has found Harbour Broadcasting Pty Ltd - the licensee of commercial Sydney radio station 2GB - twice breached Australia's broadcasting code in the lead-up to the December 2005 Cronulla riot.
2GB's Breakfast with Alan Jones program came under ACMA scrutiny following complaints from listeners about material aired between December 5 and 9, 2005.
The regulator found the Commercial Radio Code of Practice 2004 was breached by comments aired on Jones's top-rating breakfast program between December 7 and 9, 2005.
Those comments contravened the code by being "likely to encourage violence or brutality" and "likely to vilify people of Lebanese background and of Middle Eastern background on the basis of their ethnicity".
ACMA's report focused on Jones's broadcasting of correspondence from listeners about tensions at Cronulla in the days before the December 11 riot.
It said while the comments were "presented for a purpose in the public interest, being discussion of factors contributing to unrest in Cronulla ... ACMA was not persuaded that the relevant comments were presented reasonably and in good faith".
Are you trying to tell me that words have no bearing on actual violence? Which planet are you living on?
In fact, I wll go as far as to say that all decent Mormons should abandon this board. The biased anti-Mormon filth here is disgusting. Thread after thread, post after post, only seeks to satirise, demonise, and bring down Mormonism. It is, indeed, a cesspool. And I don't blame Mormons for not posting here. I hope that all Mormons will eventually take leave of this board, and leave you all to whine and cackle amongst yourselves, and indulge in your biases unfettered.
So you can now go into "angry mode", beastie. Tell me how wrong I am. But remember one thing - You once had a witness of the Book of Mormon. You have rationalised that as "brain processes". If you are right, then I'm a fool. If you are wrong, then you may be making the biggest mistake of your life by your obsessive opposition to Mormonism. You will reap as you are sowing.