Chalk Up Another MAD-influenced Apostasy

[_Mister Scratch]

Wow, they are just shooting them dead over there. An intriguing, closed thread from the aptly named MADboard, entitled "Records" points to further problems with Mopologetics. Check out the OP from "fatherofone":

So how does one get his name removed from the records of the church, or is this even possible?

Thanks

And the responses:

Ask your local bishop to get it removed. He probably well want a reason.

Of course, this raises the question: Are people genuinely allowed to leave the flock? Or are they bullied/threatened by the Church?

Here's another response:

Put it in writting...Might want to think this through. If you have been to Temple you are under covenant and there will be eternal consequences.

Later, we get this entreaty from emiliza:

The letter to the bishop. He will forward it on to Salt Lake City. I believe you get a confirmation letter afterwards. However prior to the bishop forwarding it, I believe they generally check with the person to see if there is anything they can help with.

I hope this isn't for you, but just a general inquiry.

Next, the poster called 'Son' raises an interesting question:

Why do people completely remove themselves from the records of the church?

Is it a public protest?
Are there obligations you are still mandated to observe and someone will bother you insesantly until you comply?
Could someone just go inactive or is this not really possible in the LDS?

And finally, the big clarification from fatherofone himself:

from everything I have read on this board and other places yes I am contemplating leaving

Yeeouch! It seems that Boyd K. Packer was right when he declared that "The truth destroys." DCP and others have declared, in writing, that the purpose of Mopologetics is to "defend" the LDS Church. I have to wonder: does this "defense" include driving wavering members away from the flock?

I also thought that 'Son' raised an extremely interesting question. Is it possible to simply "leave" the LDS Church? I.e., can one simply "drift away" and become inactive? My sense is that the answer to this question is, "No, one cannot do that." I am reminded of the copious efforts made by wards to reactivate inactive members, outreach efforts and so forth. To my mind, this smacks of hypocrisy a bit when one recalls the old saw about ex-Mormons, "They can leave the Church, but they can't leave it alone." Likewise, is it true that the Church cannot leave exiters alone? Or that people who want out can only be guaranteed their peace if they formally resign? Perhaps it is more evidence of the "all or nothing" mentality which many have observed in the Church....

[_Who Knows]

What's this guys history? Has he been a critic from the outset? Or was he once a 'defender of the faith'?

[_Mister Scratch]

What's this guys history? Has he been a critic from the outset? Or was he once a 'defender of the faith'?

I'm not sure. The information beneath his screenname/avatar indicates that he has been a member of the forum since 2005. Thus, I think it's FAIR to say he's legit.

[_Sethbag]

I'll admit publicly that when I was coming up to the very line, across which lay apostasy, on this side of which lay testimony, when I was getting close to being able to contemplate seriously the likelihood that the church might not actually be true after all, it was Book of Abraham apologetics, and a review I read from FARMS folks of "In Sacred Loneliness" that helped tip me over to the other side.

The Book of Abraham apologetics were just plain stupid, and I was forced to confront the stupidity of it and realize that this was what I was defending. The review of Todd Compton's book also seemed to make the reviewers look like they were in a desparate fight against the truth as well. The review went to great pains trying to minimize the potential exposure to claims of improper sex, cutting down the number of women they would admit to be probably proven as Joseph's wives, especially the polyandrous ones, and attempting to completely undercut any belief that Joseph was probably having sex with many if not most of the women. What got me was how they attempted, after whittling down the number of polyandrous wives they would admit to, to show that Joseph might only have had sex with one of them. Wow, that really helps. That review, and the stuff I read in response to "By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus", including some Nibley stuff, made me realize what Mormon apologetics is, really, a desparate attempt to continue justifying faith in a man-made institution through finding, one way or another, some defense for the indefensible.

[_truth dancer]

When I found ZLMB and FAIR, I was REALLY, I mean REALLY hoping for answers, some help, something.... anything to give me some way to believe.

What I found was there were no answers. After I took away the attacks and the rude behavior of some apologists, it came down to the fact that there was nothing there. A few Nibleyesque quesses but no answers.

If one doesn't discover the world of apologetic Mormonism, one can still hold to the idea that there are answers out there but once the discovery is made, it becomes clear rather quickly (for many) that there is truth and it is not "faith promoting."

For me, my challenge with disbelief had very little to do with church history, or the Book of Mormon fabrication, or Joseph Smith's behavior, etc. etc. etc.

It had more to do with the fact that God/life/reality, presented in the LDS church just did not fit with my personal experience of our existence. I just see the universe working in a way that I could not integrate with the church.

I've said it before but if I were wishing to keep the church alive I would certainly rethink the world of apologetics... at least how it is played out in the cyber world.

~dancer~

[_Seven]

My experience with apologetics is similar to Sethbag and Truth Dancer. The FARMS review of "In Sacred Loneliness" was the first apologetic information. I had encountered and I remember getting sick from it. The dishonesty, spin, and excuses for Joseph Smith's polygamy all in "defending" the church pushed me away from it. My testimony was also pretty damaged after learning about the treasure hunting/seer stone.

It was the Journal of Discourses and editing of history that caused the most turmoil for me. When I began to read the countless teachings made by Prophets that are "not useful" anymore, I was forced to confront that Mormon Prophets are not led by God anymore than the next guy. Trying to define Mormon doctrine was a wake up call for me. If I was going to discount all these teachings/doctrine/changes to ordinances etc. that were spoken in God's name, then why would I believe in anything the current Prophets reveal or teach in Conference?
I really don't know how apologists are able to make this work for them because it is unhealthy to the mind and spirit to defend immoral behavior and believe that the current Prophet Trump's all other teachings. (you may as well throw out the Standard works with this belief)

I couldn't keep a healthy relationship with Christ/God if I embraced the apologetic nonsense.

It is often mentioned by apologist types that critics/exmos have to go on boards like this or RFM to validate their choice.
For me it's the apologetic boards/sites (MAD,FARMS,FAIR) that validate my choice. When I read the BS coming from those sites, it only helps remind me why I left! Reading the countless TBM endorsements for future polygamy and past racism also did me in. I realized the members were not who I thought they were. Not that I believe the posters on MAD represent Chapel Mormons, but I have learned there is a certain level of acceptance among all TBMs for God to command abominable acts he condemns in the scriptures.

When I first went to FAIR I was desperate to find evidence that the unsanitized history I was learning was false. I was not only shocked to find out that the history was true, but that LDS members were defending it as Godly. That disturbed me more than anything. FAIR was instrumental in my inactivity because had I not found out that the history was correct, I could have easily been duped by the Chapel Mormons telling me it was "anti Mormon lies." It forced me to research and study history that I would have never learned had FAIR and FARMS not been there. (The person that referred me to FAIR thought it would have helped ease my concerns about Mormon polygamy but it had the opposite result. )

Now when Chapel Mormons tell me I have been deceived by apostate material, I just refer them to FAIR.
LDS.org even has a link to their site.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Seven... I agree with you.

If one is struggling with belief, going to RFM can (to some) reaffirm the church by giving the impression that apostates are angry and horrible sinners who lie about the church ( as some believers claim).

But, by going to FAIR/MAD one comes to the understanding that the "lies" are true, that the church is not what it claims to be, that prophets are not inspired by God, that revelation doesn't really happen, that the Book of Mormon is not a true book, that the Book of Abraham is not from Abraham, that Joseph Smith was not a very decent man, that the church is about power and authority, etc. etc. etc.

I would never refer someone to FAIR/MAD if they wanted to keep their testimony.

~dancer~

[_moksha]

When you are on the line, some of their attacking posters may misinterpret it and go after you. This isn't so much a a shark thing with blood in the water, but a reflexive defense of the Church type thing.

[_rcrocket]

My experience with apologetics is that if one is reasonably founded in the scriptures, and accept the scriptures as a moral basis upon which to base judgments, it is easy to see that every published thing Joseph Smith and Brigham Young did has analogues in the sacred writ. They acted exactly as prophets of old; they had strengths; they had weaknesses. The stone-throwers (read: Mormondiscussions and RFM) have their day and fame and then are lost in the streams of history.

But, if you have problems with the scriptures, or have problems with a belief in the miracle of Jesus Christ, its going to be hard to accept the notion that Joseph Smith is a prophet. And, I know I'll get a lot of heat for this, but many folks who apostacize also have problems with the Church's strict moral code -- the find it personally repugnant or they cannot comply.

This particular Board is many times entertaining. Pathetic self-centered lives are replayed in anonymity and hypocrisy rules the roost. Nary a trace of Christianity in the lot of you; even GIMR, the apparent divinity student, has little truck with any of the moral imperatives of the Gospel.

The only ones I really respect on this Board are the self-professed atheists or non-believers who live their lives that way and seek to prove the absurdity of any religion, be it LDS or anything else. The rest of you are, well, pathetic. Carry on; it helps me justify being judgmental.

And, go ahead and complain about my posts to my partnership and my stake president as some of you have threatened to do. I wear my faith like a martyr.

rcrocket

[_CaliforniaKid]

Someone threatened to rat you out to your bishop? I may be pathetic, but I'll stand up and defend even a judgmental person when the occasion arises. To whoever threatened rcrocket: you're a moron.