Another Mo gets banned from.....

[_why me]

Whyme, the answer is obvious. The board is not interested in debates between Mormons and exmormons. Likewise, RFM is not interested in debate between Mormon and exmormon.

Believers seem to have a lot of difficulty grasping this pretty simple concept.

That is fine with me. But is that I good definition of a postmormon? I hope not. If I were a postmormon, I would want to be engaged in dialogue and not sheltered from it.

Post-marxists and Marxists often engage in dialogue with mutual respect, likewise for post-feminists and feminists. Being post-something is not about disengagement. Rather just the opposite.

[_Pokatator]

Why Me

I may be wrong about you on PostMormon but I don't think so but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. But the bottom line is that you owned some of the problem you had on that board very seldom is it a one way street. I would be interested in what you wrote at MAAD about your moniker and avatar. Maybe that would help me over come my objection to them but I would doubt it. If I was to use the same avatar I think you would have plenty to say and maybe you wouldn't say it but I would guess you wouldn't like it.

I realize and support you in your right to use them and I just stated how they make me feel and react to them. Again I think it because of your past behavior on PM.org and the Bednar/Tommy comments.

Just carry on, I'll try to overlook it like I do the *****'s.

[_rain-mom]

postmorg.org

I have found this postmorg website to be extremely interesting because they seem to ban Mormon posters who wish to dialogue with them. Recently, a poster that went by the name StillMo was banned. I have idea why these 'enlightened' postmormons would feel threatened by Mormon posters. My definition of postmormon is: a person who has moved on from the LDS church and who is now engaged with other aspects of life.

And yet, this is far from the case. When a Mormon poster engages them, they become very defensive, a little nervous, and finally issuing a ban. But what is strange is that the Utah press as been rather nice to them. But somehow they can not be nice to LDS posters unless they fit into a postmorg mold.

I find this site more in line with postmormonism as Mormons, exmormons dialogue with eachother. And no one is banned.


But what's up with that other site?

Why don't you go there and ask and then report back?

I was banned. No can do. The general manager runs a tight ship over there. Any challenge to postmorgdom will eventually get a person banned, unless they post in a certain style congenial to all. Plus if a Mormon posts a comment of disagreement, he or she will get 10 or so responses and the Mormon is expected to reply to all. And so, three Mormon posts may get several responses and the poor Mormon needs to reply to all the posts.

There seems to be different rules for Mormons and postmormons.

This is EXACTLY what I witness on the MAD board, time and again. One non or ex-mo trying to respond to numerous TBM's in attack mode, screeching for CFR, CFR, CFR. Of course there are never any references that are acceptable; they've all been "taken out of context". Pitiful!

[_Scottie]

Joseph was not such a bad guy. Give him some slack.

The more I learn about him, the more I believe he was a disugusting individual of the lowest moral fiber. The amount of slack he gets already is worlds more than anybody else I know. I have no intentions of giving him more.

[_Polygamy Porter]

Why don't you go there and ask and then report back?

I was banned. No can do. The general manager runs a tight ship over there.

There seems to be different rules for Mormons and postmormons.

What? You were banned?

I mean c'mon, based on your activity(or lack of) you really aren't Mormon. You are about as Mormon as an easter catholic is catholic.

[_beastie]

That is fine with me. But is that I good definition of a postmormon? I hope not. If I were a postmormon, I would want to be engaged in dialogue and not sheltered from it.

Post-marxists and Marxists often engage in dialogue with mutual respect, likewise for post-feminists and feminists. Being post-something is not about disengagement. Rather just the opposite.

It's not that they want to avoid all dialogue - they're just not interested in debating the truthfulness of the church with a believer. I know you could understand that if you wanted to undestand that.

It's the same on RFM. Although I rarely post there and don't agree with much expressed there, it does have clear, stated purpose. It's not to debate the truthfulness of the church with believers. One reason for this is because people who lose faith and leave Mormonism have usually "gone the rounds" already with the believers in their real lives. It's frustrating and serves no purpose - kind of like debating on MAD. So they don't want to be subjected to that on RFM, as well.

If you want to debate nonbelievers, then go to a site made for that purpose. Don't go to a site that is expressly NOT made for that purpose and then blame them for a not allowing you to do what you weren't supposed to do in the first place. There are some forums that are designed for LDS believers alone, and not designed for debating with nonbelievers. If a nonbeliever went there and tried to initiate debate by criticizing the church, they'd get the same reception you got at post-mormon.

MADdites appear incapable of understanding this point, no matter how many times it is explained to them. I think it is due to an inability to accord exmormons any type of respect or dignity.

[_why me]

Here is the part of their website that I take issue with because if one lingers on their board they will see a lot of antimormon rhetoric, in my opinion. And heaven forbid if one posts a positive. I have never actually seen posts where people post the good. Mostly it is negative and mocking toward the church. Also, I have also seen where postmo members do wish for other family members to leave the church. Or least encourage them to do so, if family members have questions.

However, this statement does make the organization sound open-minded but I have very seldom seen them live by this standard. And so, when I first came in contact with them, I took this statement to heart. But when I saw that many posts were against the church I began to defend the good. Thus, the problem developed. I called them on this part of their website many times to no avail. But who knows maybe I am mistaken....


Some ask if we are anti-Mormon. Our answer is, no, we are not. We feel we are not because we acknowledge and want to keep all the good that came into our lives through Mormonism. We feel we are not because it's not our purpose to encourage people to leave the Church. We feel we are not because many of our family and friends are Mormons and we certainly are not anti-family and friends. But as an organization, we are open about the Church's misrepresentations and the way in which its dogmatism and authoritarianism have proven detrimental to many individuals, families, and communities

Are they antimormon? Well, I can only say that they are not pro-mormon.

[_beastie]

Being an exmormon, either with a family still fully committed to Mormonism, or living in a culture dominated by Mormonism, is very frustrating. The Mormons around the person usually convey no respect for your loss of faith, and often continue to badger or "guilt" the individual about the topic. Exmormons can be treated like pariahs in the larger society, as well, when it is LDS dominated. The LDS church has done such a good job convincing its members that there is no legitimate justification for loss of faith, that any loss of faith is due to the weakness or sin of the particular person, that the members usually just automatically react to exmormons as if they are tainted. The exception is when the individual member has also struggled with doubt.

This creates a lot of resentment. Even if you do not agree with exmormons, at least admit that there are more than enough problematic claims in the church to make loss of faith quite sane and reasonable. Of course this cannot be admitted in any church that claims to be the "one true" church, can it?

When people leave OTHER religions that do not indoctrinate their members with either "one truism" or "evil apostate" myths, this phenomenon does not occur. People just leave and everyone goes on as normal. It's only in religions that teach "one truisms" or "evil apostate' myths that this phenomenon occurs. That ought to give you a little clue as to its cause.

So yes, they continue to need to vent, because even after leaving Mormonism, it affects their lives in negative ways. Instead of just allowing them to do so and simply not visiting their sites if it disturbs you so, you want to control that aspect of their life, too, and not even allow them that. And then you complain when they rightfully don't allow you to do so.

[_beastie]

by the way, I don't mean that if exmormons are saying patently false or prejudicial ideas based on anger, they should be allowed to do so unchecked. I'm saying that you need to allow their own community - other exmormons, whyme, which you are not - to do that checking. It's just never going to work for a believer to do it. This is what Wade was never able to understand about his own little mission. You need to work on your own group, which has plenty of issues as well. There is just too much baggage - baggage created BY THE CHURCH ITSELF - for it to work otherwise.

[_Pokatator]

Here is the part of their website that I take issue with because if one lingers on their board they will see a lot of antimormon rhetoric, in my opinion. And heaven forbid if one posts a positive. I have never actually seen posts where people post the good. Mostly it is negative and mocking toward the church. Also, I have also seen where postmo members do wish for other family members to leave the church. Or least encourage them to do so, if family members have questions.

However, this statement does make the organization sound open-minded but I have very seldom seen them live by this standard. And so, when I first came in contact with them, I took this statement to heart. But when I saw that many posts were against the church I began to defend the good. Thus, the problem developed. I called them on this part of their website many times to no avail. But who knows maybe I am mistaken....


Some ask if we are anti-Mormon. Our answer is, no, we are not. We feel we are not because we acknowledge and want to keep all the good that came into our lives through Mormonism. We feel we are not because it's not our purpose to encourage people to leave the Church. We feel we are not because many of our family and friends are Mormons and we certainly are not anti-family and friends. But as an organization, we are open about the Church's misrepresentations and the way in which its dogmatism and authoritarianism have proven detrimental to many individuals, families, and communities

Are they antimormon? Well, I can only say that they are not pro-mormon.

Defining antimormon again is very hard to do and is totally subjective. You have your definition and I have mine and they have theirs. So someone who leaves the church makes no waves what so ever are they antimormon? Wouldn't an inactive be the opposite of pro-mormon? Just be their lack of action? Does it take an action to be antimormon?

We can go on and on about this, back and forth, but where do you draw the ____line____? When does someone become an antimormon, or non pro-mormon, or inactive? Is a faithful lemming a pro-mormon?

Beastie's last two posts have been spot on. Please read them and try to understand. The "true church" cliché brings a lot of baggage with lots of people in and out of the church. By the time someone makes it to a message board the majority of them have heard all the Polly Anna Mormon responses and are tired of hearing it again.