Jump to content
Stargazer

Is this a "safe" place to send a persons with a faith crisis?

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

FWIW, Juliann is using "atrocity tale" as it is defined in literature about "apostates" from new religious movements:

I'll leave it to you to decide if that description applies to your post about the FairMormon support board.

That is how it is defined in one article from which you have only provided one quote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrocity_story

Quote

 

The term atrocity story (also referred to as atrocity tale) as defined by the American sociologists David G. Bromley and Anson D. Shupe refers to the symbolic presentation of action or events (real or imaginary) in such a context that they are made flagrantly to violate the (presumably) shared premises upon which a given set of social relationships should be conducted. The recounting of such tales is intended as a means of reaffirming normative boundaries. By sharing the reporter's disapproval or horror, an audience reasserts normative prescription and clearly locates the violator beyond the limits of public morality. The term was coined in 1979 by Bromley, Shupe, and Joseph Ventimiglia.[1]

Bromley and others define an atrocity as an event that is perceived as a flagrant violation of a fundamental value. It contains the following three elements:

  1. moral outrage or indignation;
  2. authorization of punitive measures;
  3. mobilization of control efforts against the apparent perpetrators.

The veracity of the story is considered irrelevant.[2]

 

Isn't it interesting how even Wikipedia laid out the three elements?

Moral outrage. Yup. Awful, awful mean Mormons

Authorization of punitive measures (they drove me out of Mormonism!)

Control efforts. Yup. Those mean Mormons were going to turn me in! 

As to the veracity of the story?  Just convenient stories and outrage, even after many years.  Which always leads me to the same quandry. Aren't those who create atrocity tales glad to be free of the bad, mean Mormonism? Don't they claim their life is ever so much better? So why aren't they glad those bad mean Mormons pushed them out?

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, juliann said:

That is how it is defined in one article from which you have only provided one quote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrocity_story

Isn't it interesting how even Wikipedia laid out the three elements?

Moral outrage. Yup. Awful, awful mean Mormons

Authorization of punitive measures (they drove me out of Mormonism!)

Control efforts. Yup. Those mean Mormons were going to turn me in! 

As to the veracity of the story?  Just convenient stories and outrage, even after many years.  Which always leads me to the same quandry. Aren't those who create atrocity tales glad to be free of the bad, mean Mormonism? Don't they claim their life is ever so much better? So why aren't they glad those bad mean Mormons pushed them out?

As far as I know, HJW is an active member of the church. I’m not seeing any of the three elements in his story. 

Edited by jkwilliams

Share this post


Link to post

As for where to send sincere people, I would recommend closed FB groups like Uplift or LDS Faith Crisis Support. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/14/2018 at 3:00 PM, Stargazer said:

The question in the title just about covers it.  

I'm asking because I have a particular individual in mind, but also generally.  

Sometimes I think the answer might be "yes", and sometimes "no", but your opinion is solicited.

And by "safe" I mean will participating here make things worse with respect to the faith crisis, or better.  I know that nothing is 100%, but overall, if all things are equal.  Feel free to answer, even if you're not an LDS believer.

 

 

Stargazer, it's my opinion that the best approach is talking with people. The written word doesn't convey faith as much as a witness from the Holy Ghost by one who has the Spirit; sharing spoken testimony with great love and care. 

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, juliann said:

As for where to send sincere people, I would recommend closed FB groups like Uplift or LDS Faith Crisis Support. 

So you seem to agree that FAIR isn't a good place to recommend for sincere people? Otherwise you would have included them in your recommendation. Interesting ;) 

As far as the accusation of telling atrocity stories goes,  my experiences on the old FAIR board (of which there apparently have been 3 different iterations) were my own. They were unpleasant, largely because of people who came across as bitter, aggressive, fearful, jerks, all while trying to build faith. I'm happy to leave it where it is. I think you've shown what you're about.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So you seem to agree that FAIR isn't a good place to recommend for sincere people? Otherwise you would have included them in your recommendation. Interesting ;) 

As far as the accusation of telling atrocity stories goes,  my experiences on the old FAIR board (of which there apparently have been 3 different iterations) were my own. They were unpleasant, largely because of people who came across as bitter, aggressive, fearful, jerks, all while trying to build faith. I'm happy to leave it where it is. I think you've shown what you're about.

The idea that there are standard narrative tropes involved in leaving a religious group is pretty uncontroversial, just as there are standard narratives involved in joining a religion. The problem comes in saying that these narratives are false because they follow a particular form. And it's even more problematic to assign these narrative types where they don't belong. Thus, your less-than-positive experience with a message board is labeled as an atrocity story and dismissed as coming from an "angry exie," even though you aren't an ex-Mormon, the story isn't about the LDS church, and you don't spend any time demonizing those "awful mean Mormons." That some people on a "support board" might have behaved badly is not surprising. A few years back, an Evangelical friend invited me to a board for board-again-Christian apologetic discussion, as he felt I might be able to provide insight into Mormonism. From the moment I got there, I was called a "Mormon spy" (I guess I'm a double-agent :lol:), told I was "too Mormon" and "not Christian enough," and basically attacked from all sides. That place made this board look like a group hug. Compared to your experience on the FairMormon board, mine was more of an "atrocity story." But I doubt anyone here would discount my description as "just convenient stories and outrage."

I remember reading Claude Levi-Strauss's Tristes Tropiques and being struck by how his expectation of structures and forms shaped what he actually saw. Rather than observe and evaluate what he saw, he expected to see certain things, so he saw them. That seems to be the case with the propensity to assign stories like yours to the "atrocity tale" category, where they can be dismissed as the rantings of an angry apostate. 

Edited by jkwilliams
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

The idea that there are standard narrative tropes involved in leaving a religious group is pretty uncontroversial, just as there are standard narratives involved in joining a religion. The problem comes in saying that these narratives are false because they follow a particular form. And it's even more problematic to assign these narrative types where they don't belong. Thus, your less-than-positive experience with a message board is labeled as an atrocity story and dismissed as coming from an "angry exie," even though you aren't an ex-Mormon, the story isn't about the LDS church, and you don't spend any time demonizing those "awful mean Mormons." That some people on a "support board" might have behaved badly is not surprising. A few years back, an Evangelical friend invited me to a board for board-again-Christian apologetic discussion, as he felt I might be able to provide insight into Mormonism. From the moment I got there, I was called a "Mormon spy" (I guess I'm a double-agent :lol:), told I was "too Mormon" and "not Christian enough, and basically attacked from all sides. That place made this board look like a group hug. Compared to your experience on the FairMormon board, mine was more of an "atrocity story." But I doubt anyone here would discount my description as "just convenient stories and outrage."

I remember reading Claude Levi-Strauss's Tristes Tropiques and being struck by how his expectation of structures and forms shaped what he actually saw. Rather than observe and evaluate what he saw, he expected to see certain things, so he saw them. That seems to be the case with the propensity to assign stories like yours to the "atrocity tale" category, where they can be dismissed as the rantings of an angry apostate. 

Ironically, Juliann is responsible for drawing greater attention to what I think was only a line or 2 in a post. She's drawn out the story so that I've even had to give more detail about it. With more detail comes more outrage from Juliann. But I'm sure my experience on that old FAIR board bore no resemblance to Juliann's reactions to me here, nor would it have been magnified by multiple Julianns responding on that FAIR board :)

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Ironically, Juliann is responsible for drawing greater attention to what I think was only a line or 2 in a post. She's drawn out the story so that I've even had to give more detail about it. With more detail comes more outrage from Juliann. But I'm sure my experience on that old FAIR board bore no resemblance to Juliann's reactions to me here, nor would it have been magnified by multiple Julianns responding on that FAIR board :)

Leaving the specifics aside, it's clear that even with the best intentions, humans are quite capable of behaving badly. Pointing it out doesn't make someone a terrible person.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So you seem to agree that FAIR isn't a good place to recommend for sincere people? Otherwise you would have included them in your recommendation. Interesting ;) 

As far as the accusation of telling atrocity stories goes,  my experiences on the old FAIR board (of which there apparently have been 3 different iterations) were my own. They were unpleasant, largely because of people who came across as bitter, aggressive, fearful, jerks, all while trying to build faith. I'm happy to leave it where it is. I think you've shown what you're about.

 

Oh, brother. You know darn well FM doesn't have a forum beyond a Q&A.  

How many times have you been banned from this board for the behavior you accuse others of? 

5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Ironically, Juliann is responsible for drawing greater attention to what I think was only a line or 2 in a post. She's drawn out the story so that I've even had to give more detail about it. With more detail comes more outrage from Juliann. But I'm sure my experience on that old FAIR board bore no resemblance to Juliann's reactions to me here, nor would it have been magnified by multiple Julianns responding on that FAIR board :)

Again, you fail to mention that you have responded to each point. It is always someone else's fault. That is what killed the support board. We see it in action. 

It is the privilege that fascinates me. There is only outrage that a forum created by someone else can't be controlled. I am so familiar with this from the early days of this board and all of the entitled posters who thought they should make the rules. The displays of privilege were unforgettable. Just like being put out because a forum shut down without notice. Well, how dare those other people stop supplying you with a place to destroy.  Good grief. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, juliann said:

Oh, brother. You know darn well FM doesn't have a forum beyond a Q&A.  

How many times have you been banned from this board for the behavior you accuse others of? 

Again, you fail to mention that you have responded to each point. It is always someone else's fault. That is what killed the support board. We see it in action. 

It is the privilege that fascinates me. There is only outrage that a forum created by someone else can't be controlled. I am so familiar with this from the early days of this board and all of the entitled posters who thought they should make the rules. The displays of privilege were unforgettable. Just like being put out because a forum shut down without notice. Well, how dare those other people stop supplying you with a place to destroy.  Good grief. 

HJW was banned?

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, juliann said:

Oh, brother. You know darn well FM doesn't have a forum beyond a Q&A.  

How many times have you been banned from this board for the behavior you accuse others of? 

Again, you fail to mention that you have responded to each point. It is always someone else's fault. That is what killed the support board. We see it in action. 

It is the privilege that fascinates me. There is only outrage that a forum created by someone else can't be controlled. I am so familiar with this from the early days of this board and all of the entitled posters who thought they should make the rules. The displays of privilege were unforgettable. Just like being put out because a forum shut down without notice. Well, how dare those other people stop supplying you with a place to destroy.  Good grief. 

I've never been banned from this board or any other. Are you insinuating otherwise?

You seem to be conflating my experience on the Fair board with the early days of this board as if I had anything to do with that. I don't mind admitting that I felt a little put out when a board, with the express purpose of supporting those in faith crisis, shut down without notice or explanation. It felt neglectful and dismissive; IMO- not ideal for a "support" board.

You are accusing me of destroying the place. You don't know me. You don't know the name I posted under on that board. How could you possibly make the accusation that I either destroyed, or at least attempted to destroy the board? You insinuate that I'm outraged because I couldn't control that board. Pretty strong accusations when you don't even know who I am. Your anger seems to have thrust you into meltdown mode.

All of this started because you made incorrect assumptions about my post and then called me out on it. You've been nothing but petty and vindictive and I've tried to stay civil but I think the best thing now is just to ignore you. Have a good weekend.

Edited by HappyJackWagon

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So you seem to agree that FAIR isn't a good place to recommend for sincere people? Otherwise you would have included them in your recommendation. Interesting ;) 

As far as the accusation of telling atrocity stories goes,  my experiences on the old FAIR board (of which there apparently have been 3 different iterations) were my own. They were unpleasant, largely because of people who came across as bitter, aggressive, fearful, jerks, all while trying to build faith. I'm happy to leave it where it is. I think you've shown what you're about.

 

Support Board?  Because that is FairMormon.  If you mean Discussion Board, that is the old FAIR Board.  There was only one form of that.  The Support Board was something completely different, or meant to be.  And there were two of that.

Using FAIR if you mean FM is very confusing in this case as they mean very different things.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Sunday21 said:

I found AskGramps very useful for doctrinal questions. https://askgramps.org/

Is there a more pro-church discussion forum than this forim? 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

I found AskGramps very useful for doctrinal questions. https://askgramps.org/

I like AskGramps for beginning or less detailed stuff.  I agree he's pretty good.  

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Calm said:

Support Board?  Because that is FairMormon.  If you mean Discussion Board, that is the old FAIR Board.  There was only one form of that.  The Support Board was something completely different, or meant to be.  And there were two of that.

Using FAIR if you mean FM is very confusing in this case as they mean very different things.

Good question. I didn't realize FAIR and FAIR Mormon were different entities. I thought they were the same. So that part could be my mistake and I've got no problem admitting it. It wasn't intentional and is easily corrected without attack. I appreciate you asking nicely. :)  Are FAIR and FAIR Mormon affiliated? IF so, it would seem the confusion could be at least partly of their making. In any case I was speaking with the understanding I had. If I was wrong. Sorry. But Juliann's reaction really only illustrated my point. If they're not affiliated, I hope you can see that my mistake was honest and understandable.

After you mentioned it I remember it being called a support board but it seemed to function like any other discussion board so that seems to be semantics without much of a difference.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Good question. I didn't realize FAIR and FAIR Mormon were different entities. I thought they were the same. So that part could be my mistake and I've got no problem admitting it. It wasn't intentional and is easily corrected without attack. I appreciate you asking nicely. :)  Are FAIR and FAIR Mormon affiliated? IF so, it would seem the confusion could be at least partly of their making. In any case I was speaking with the understanding I had. If I was wrong. Sorry. But Juliann's reaction really only illustrated my point. If they're not affiliated, I hope you can see that my mistake was honest and understandable.

After you mentioned it I remember it being called a support board but it seemed to function like any other discussion board so that seems to be semantics without much of a difference.

The name of FAIR was changed to FairMormon.

Quote

they mean very different things.

The " they" refers to the discussion board and the Support Board, not FAIR/FairMormon.

 So when you say "FAIR board", especially "old FAIR board", it appears you are talking about the orginal version of this discussion board of around 2005, especially since there have been no boards associated with FM since the 2014? 15? Support Board (and likely won't be as the format just doesn't work for the style of interaction we desire, which is to inform and support positive movement towards faith, not debate), so the Support Board is the "new board" in the context of FAIR / FairMormon,

It is much clearer what you are talking about if you use the appropriate names that indicate the time period you are referring to,  If you mix up the names, since there have been complaints about the original FAIR debate board that sound the same as the current litany so such cannot identify the time you are speaking of in and of themselves (I suspect the same complaints will occur as long into the future as FM in any of it variations exist), the complaints themselves cannot identify the time period, so it is confusing.

-------

The Support Board ended up " function[ing] like any other discussion board" because there was a small group of posters who came to the board and insisted in turning it into a playground for themselves that was just like every other discussion board out there and who resisted our attempts to try and keep it on mission.  Therefore it was discontinued after much effort since there were plenty of discussion boards out there already filling that need and we saw no reason to waste our resources on someone else's entertainment, when they could have started their own if they wanted it so bad and funded and supervised it themselves.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
22 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 

All of this started because you made incorrect assumptions about my post and then called me out on it. You've been nothing but petty and vindictive and I've tried to stay civil but I think the best thing now is just to ignore you. Have a good weekend.

And what do you label your petty and vindictiveness? Not to mention that you were the one who came out swinging. 

Quote

 

                                Sweet thoughts from HappyJack:

Actually, I'm referring to the old FAIR discussion board. It was a hot mess.

But there were many times I witnessed abusive behavior by members of FAIR 

And it wasn't a rare occurrence.

Sometimes there seemed to be a mob mentality

I can't even express how unimpressed I was with many of the people there.

 

Putting aside the fact that you were dead wrong, including the name, which took you multiple posts to admit....that my telling you how unimpressed I was with a few of the people there is off limits is the best part.

Like I said, the entitlement never ceases to amaze me. It's not so fun when we do talk back on this board, is it? 

 

 

Edited by juliann
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I'll say if they are struggling with the following issues...yes it is! No doubt in my mind!

Church History

Fallibility of Leaders

Controversial Doctrine (Blacks and the Priesthood, Polygamy, etc.)

This is because this is a place where people talking things out from different angles. People in these situations have information that has stressed them. They need information and logic to help get them work it out.  Not only do they need to get the information from both sides, but they also need to feel they are getting the info from both sides. Weak arguments and cookie cutter rebuttals will get stomped on, as they should. In the end, the best answers are found. 

Other than that, probably any other lack of faith can be dealt with by the normal means. 

 

 

Edited by thatjimguy
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

If Gee were to apply for a position in Egyptology in a secular  university would his publishing record with regards to the Book of Abraham go against his getting an appointment or is his doomed to spend the rest of his career in the Religious Education department.  

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/22/2018 at 9:22 PM, aussieguy55 said:

If Gee were to apply for a position in Egyptology in a secular  university would his publishing record with regards to the Book of Abraham go against his getting an appointment or is his doomed to spend the rest of his career in the Religious Education department.  

Even at BYU apologetics don't help. So yeah, it'd probably hurt. I think those with an interest in apologetics should establish a name first by getting published in prestigious journals before doing the apologetic work in their field - beyond perhaps small stuff.

The reality is that there's politics in all academics and it can matter a great deal. There was a story in the spring at Nous suggesting many philosophy departments would actively no hire an Evangelical regardless of the quality of their work. So the political reality is that to get in many department you have to "hide" your religious identity.

On 8/18/2018 at 1:10 PM, juliann said:

And what do you label your petty and vindictiveness? Not to mention that you were the one who came out swinging. 

Rather that arguing over who started it, perhaps we can all just try to be nice? I think "mob mentality" happens. I've had it happen to me. I'm sure those doing it didn't think they were doing it and saw my complaints as hypocrisy. It was enough to make me leave some places. But in general I think we all should self-reflect (myself included) to try and avoid snark, accusations, or the like. It makes things more pleasant for all involved.

Share this post


Link to post

For the Mormon apologist what is considered an attack on your faith and what is considered  just a disagreement.  

Edited by aussieguy55
correct

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, aussieguy55 said:

For the Mormon apologist what is considered an attack on your faith and what is considered  just a disagreement.  

The answer to this probably varies by member. I consider myself an apologist, but I also engage in polemics. Criticisms of the honest seeker are just that - criticisms or points of disagreement. However, there are persons who grasp at every straw - who seem to be Hell-bent to "defeat Mormonism," so to speak. These include people who repeatedly and continuously will mislead by quoting out of context, and only quote historical matters from the most unflattering sources. This can lead to very unfair and misleading presentations of the Church. There are many such examples in our past. They often rely on rumor and hearsay to build a case. An example would be certain books on the Solomon Spalding theory for the BoM. I have read such books, and they completely fail to mention that at least one (and probably the only) manuscript of Solomon Spalding was found and can be read at the Oberlin College Library. When one does so, I think the most honest impression is that it has no real connection to the BoM, and that efforts to connect the Solomon manuscript to the appearance of the BoM are completely overblown, misleading, and sometimes dishonest. I rarely use the term "anti-Mormon." I think most who visit this site are not so. I think most have questions about the Church and perhaps certain criticisms. I have criticisms about every Church including my own. I am certainly not anti-Christian though or an anti-Christ. In short I view attacks as mostly baseless claims. incorrect information, or claims supported by little but innuendo, rumors, and hearsay. For me "attacks" have the purpose of damaging the Church rather than making honest inquiry or making historically accurate presentation, etc.

Share this post


Link to post

What do you think are the most compelling arguments for the historicity  of the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham?  What if one is an honest skeptic?

Edited by aussieguy55
more information

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, aussieguy55 said:

What do you think are the most compelling arguments for the historicity  of the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham?  

I am working on that - I am preparing something that involves many pages of evidence which I believe support the veracity of the Book of Mormon. That directly supports its historicity. If it is true, then it is historical right? - despite all the claims of how Joseph Smith could have made it up. 

The Book of Abraham is a different beast altogether. Clearly, the facsimiles are essentially the same material as what is known as the Book of Breathings. However, I believe it also clear from evidence which has arisen that Hebrews had their own interpretations of Egyptian iconography, and their own reinterpretation of Egyptian mythology. As far as the Lord is concerned it's the Egyptians who went astray, right? In facsimile 1 Joseph labeled the crocodile as the idolatrous god of Pharaoh. It is known to be true that in middle Egypt, the time of Abraham, the crocodile was a symbol for Horus, the god of Pharaoh. However, historically, at the time the Egyptians had no symbol for the Holy Spirit since they were full of idolatrous doctrines, and yet Joseph identifies the hawk symbol with the Holy Spirit. However, we also learn that Egyptian priests and pharaohs scrubbed their writings from teachings they considered heretical. For instance we undoubtedly don't have much of the monotheistic teachings of Akhenaten except for what survived in his capital city. Further, Egyptian writing evolved over time, and we know from archaeological finds in Byblos, Egypt, evolved over a period of at least 3000 years. To say Joseph is a false prophet because he did not interpret these papyri the same way a 2nd century Egyptian scribe would, I think is just a little short-sighted. Further, I believe the Book of Abraham itself did not come from the Book of Breathings papyri, but from another larger papyri which unfortunately was sold separately and lost in the Chicago fire. So to say that the papyri which were found somehow prove the Book of Abraham is inaccurate is misleading. What Joseph produced seems to have a name which is difficult to explain without his being inspired. 

Nevertheless, with my present knowledge I find it difficult to explain everything about the Book of Abraham - or at least JS' interpretation of the facsimiles. I have a testimony that it is true because I have a testimony that JS is the head of the sixth seal, and the founding prophet of the restored Church. This is based on interpretation of Biblical prophecies which place a restoration in his day, true prophecies in the Book of Mormon, and in Doctrine and Covenants, as well as personal experiences including answers from the Lord Himself. Unfortunately, I do not have a completely open channel to the Lord. I cannot expect to sit down and have a conversation with Him about the Book of Abraham. I have received many confirmations that the restored gospel is true, and for me to reject the Book of Abraham because I have difficult questions about its interpretation is not consistent with the rest of my beliefs and experience. However, I do see from a secular viewpoint that it is probably one of the more difficult things "about the Church" to accept. That is about as plain and forthright as I can be right now.

Edited by RevTestament

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×