MADB As Part Of Deconversion Narrative

[Severian]

QUOTE(Severian @ Oct 20 2007, 10:35 PM)

If you expressed these same doubts to a Bishop, you may get answers or you may get the initiation of a Court of Love - depending upon the Bishop in question. This seems too extreme a chance to take for those seeking support on difficult questions.

Severian, as usual, you're keeping the waste-water treatment plants of your home city brimming to capacity with this kind of nonsense.

We could export your crap and fertilize entire deserts (if we could find container ships to haul it).

I challenge you to show me a single member of the Church who was given a "court of love" for asking earnest, sincere questions- as opposed to copping a rotten attitude or attempting to sow doubts among other members. There is a difference- even if you are too jaundiced to see it.

Yes, I do eat too much red meat and junk food and if this could help out anyone in rural Utah, I would be pleased. However, have you not paid attention to some of the past problems various posters have related about discussing such concerns and doubts? My guess is that most of the time, such doubts are met in an earnest and supportive manner. Those other occasions that I have read about are the source of my concern.

[juliann]

However, have you not paid attention to some of the past problems various posters have related about discussing such concerns and doubts? My guess is that most of the time, such doubts are met in an earnest and supportive manner. Those other occasions that I have read about are the source of my concern.

Spin, spin, spin. CFR If the Tom Murphys aren't being excommunicated you really need to put up some evidence besides "oh, well I think I read about one" that makes your latest goofy accusation significant enough to even bother discussing. You must be the poster boy for cognitive dissonance as you constantly nag the church while claiming to be part of it.

CFR.

[Momus]

Spin, spin, spin. CFR If the Tom Murphys aren't being excommunicated you really need to put up some evidence besides "oh, well I think I read about one" that makes your latest goofy accusation significant enough to even bother discussing. You must be the poster boy for cognitive dissonance as you constantly nag the church while claiming to be part of it.

CFR.

Let's keep the personal attacks out of the thread please. Anymore and I'll close the thread.

Momus

[LifeOnaPlate]

Agreed that honest doubters/questioners should feel comfortable asking honest questions, and in some cases are treated poorly. It is not, however, a teaching of the Church for this to be so.

[Obiwan]

Well you really can't talk to a group of people about these questions at Church unless you quickly want to be shown the door, so what better place is there? If you expressed these same doubts to a Bishop, you may get answers or you may get the initiation of a Court of Love - depending upon the Bishop in question. This seems too extreme a chance to take for those seeking support on difficult questions. That is why I think such discussion boards hold great potential in assisting members during a crisis of faith.

While this particular board has more than its share of bright and knowledgeable participants, it also has some whose defending skills place them on the high side of irascible. My worry is that those who are fragile in their faith can and possibly would be further injured by lose who may launch an attack. The board also has those critics who would be happy to lead wavering members out of the fold.

You have a couple of issues here....

1. The place to be going is our best scholarly works, such as at FAIR, FARMS, books, etc. & the Scriptures and the Father of course.

2. Most of these so called "doubters" are really people who have simply made up their own minds already, and maybe just haven't made the final leap. So, they really aren't interested in humbly understanding the truth, etc. when things are explained to them. Their cups are already full and ice hard, so nothing else can penetrate those judgements they have made.

[bjw]

As a fairly new member of the church that was doubting for awhile after my first 6 months or so of membership and I can say that MADB, FAIR, and FARMS played a substantial role in me staying in the church and this is, I think, my third year now in the church. While the bishop met with me about my doubts and the SLC HQ let me talk to the public outreach department I think it was ultimately MADB, FAIR, and FARMS that pointed me in the right direction. I am now discovering Hugh Nibley videos and many apologetics sources that are strengthening my faith on an almost weekly basis. While I think doubting is normal for everyone I think it is important to know where to turn. So, I guess you could call me a sucess story.

[Dale]

The MADB board is still a great place to ask question's. It's cool being exposed to some of the bright scholarly thinkers on the board. But we do get troll's and posters of the type Juliann mentioned. Those type of person's arn't benifited by answers. But I never have read a post from a troll, or such a questioner that felt good to me. They almost act like they were on the RFM board and just came over to play game's.

If a person really wants help and answers they won't fight the answers. If a person pre-rejects answers then you can know they are a deciever. If the person is out to look for a fight that evidences they arn't putting any energy into resolving doubts and question's.

We have had posters who get banned from the board get on other boards and attack FAIR, and now MADB poster's. and they used bad experiences on the board to talk about how bad FAIR was. I assume these type of experiences among other's helped FAIR to decide to jettison the board.

[Zakuska]

Maybe there is something about participation on these boards that can set some posters on too precarious of edge, so that they reflexively snap at posters with doubts. This can be unsettling to those who come here with questions and are hoping to get soothing answers. I am uncertain as to what a solution may be, although perhaps a disclaimer somewhere on the opening page may help.

Well... for one... if they are expecting "soothing answers" they should be in the fellowship forum... not the Debate forum.

[John Williams]

After our latest "I just learned all this stuff/I have doubts/questions what do I do" poster who stomped off mad, I began to do a little board research on the phenomena of the doubting poster who not just thinks MADB is a rescue operation but demands it.

This is what I found once these people (assuming they are not trolls) come to the board. They claim to be members who want help or answers but they only respond to the most negative posts. They will ignore two pages of supportive posts to hone in on someone they can battle.

It's hard not to "hone in" on the shrill and angry, who tend to drown out the supportive. It's not that they ignore the supportive, but it's the angry, shrill, attacks that make a bigger impression. Not surprising.

These posters then declare that they were treated rudely, attacked, yada yada by MADB not an individual or two but MADB, which they turned to as a last resort only to be rejected.

While I can't comment on people's sincerity, I have indeed met some who say they came here for answers and were attacked. Again, you have to admit that there are people here who do little but attack, so I'm not sure why it's so hard to believe people feel attacked here.

Thus, the church is not what it says it is.

That's not how I read it. The people I've talked to say that they came here in search of answers (and I think you would agree that struggling members' coming here for answers is a mistake) when they were confronted with troubling information (and that information is different for each person). They thought someone would give them answers, and instead they got attacked. For some, that indicates that there are no good answers, so they came away from here feeling that the troubling issues were true.

This then becomes part of their story when they tell it. It is usually accompanied by statements about MADB (or FAIR/FARMS, fill in the blank) hurting the church despite the fact that what was formerly known as FARM is actually run by BYU.

Is anyone else seeing this as a trend?

You and I agree on one thing: experiences take on certain narrative forms. Where we disagree is the idea that such forms invalidate the narratives. Are we going to say that LDS conversion stories are bogus because they follow certain narrative structures?

[selek]

Yes, I do eat too much red meat and junk food and if this could help out anyone in rural Utah, I would be pleased. However, have you not paid attention to some of the past problems various posters have related about discussing such concerns and doubts? My guess is that most of the time, such doubts are met in an earnest and supportive manner. Those other occasions that I have read about are the source of my concern.

Sev, your spin is up to almost 10k RPM, but you haven't answered the question.

Anonymous "atrocity" stories on a message board such as this- especially given the utter dearth of credibility most of the complainers bring with them- are hardly proof of your contention.

You've tossed around a lot of flour, but so far, the bread just won't rise.

I'll ask you again, and even broaden your latitude a bit- please provide some evidence that the Church deals harshly with those with sincere questions or doubts, as opposed to those who display bad attitudes, set themselves up as authoritiesin contravention to the Church, or those who insist on acting in such a way as to plant doubts amongst the faithful.

And since you responded to my earlier missive with tongue-in-cheek, I shall do likewise:

For the record, I doubt your enormous talent for fertilizer production could be profitably employed in "rural" Utah. With a little effort, that shovel you sling might reasonably be expected to convert the entire Gobi desert into a fertile plain- and solve the issue of human hunger once and for all.

Who knows your true potential? Someonly who wields a shovel only marginally better than yourself just won the Nobel Peace Prize. With your tremendous talent and inestimable credibility, you could be next.

Now that we've gotten the not-quite-so-serious stuff out of the way, how about a straight answer in support of your earlier assertion?

[Hammer]

Well you really can't talk to a group of people about these questions at Church unless you quickly want to be shown the door, so what better place is there? If you expressed these same doubts to a Bishop, you may get answers or you may get the initiation of a Court of Love - depending upon the Bishop in question. This seems too extreme a chance to take for those seeking support on difficult questions. That is why I think such discussion boards hold great potential in assisting members during a crisis of faith.

While this particular board has more than its share of bright and knowledgeable participants, it also has some whose defending skills place them on the high side of irascible. My worry is that those who are fragile in their faith can and possibly would be further injured by lose who may launch an attack. The board also has those critics who would be happy to lead wavering members out of the fold.

If you choose to stand up in gospel doctrine class I would show you the door. If you choose to ask your home teachers in private, or the bishop or his couselors, I guarantee you won't be shown the door. It is those who insist upon making their problems everyone's problems that get the exit sign.

[juliann]

Now that we've gotten the not-quite-so-serious stuff out of the way, how about a straight answer in support of your earlier assertion?

Good luck. I think after two people asking multiple times it isn't going to happen. There are far too many people who just like to plant themselves here and snipe under the cover of being a Mormon. I have a hard time understanding a mindset that takes time out everyday to follow people and throw rocks at them. Not my idea of a fulfilling life. Different strokes I guess.

CFR. Again.

[Dale]

I think it's ok to say in a post lightly you struggle with things. But some person's overdo it in a way that make's them look weird. This one lady I tried to work with was hanging out on the RFM board, and the FAIR board at the same time. She already made up her mind to support the RFM side she had picked up that bothered her. But her posting I guess was more to validate her skeptical position. She was argumentative. I think the moderators at the time had removed her from the board as a troll.

[juliann]

While this particular board has more than its share of bright and knowledgeable participants, it also has some whose defending skills place them on the high side of irascible. My worry is that those who are fragile in their faith can and possibly would be further injured by lose who may launch an attack. The board also has those critics who would be happy to lead wavering members out of the fold.

And yet all you do is come here to make sneering drive by comments about Mormonism. This little sidebar would be funny if it wasn't so pathetically hypocritical. The frightening thing is the size of the pot population here that sees absolutely nothing ridiciulous in running to everyone else's kitchen to sneer at the kettles.

[John Williams]

And yet all you do is come here to make sneering drive by comments about Mormonism. This little sidebar would be funny if it wasn't so pathetically hypocritical. The frightening thing is the size of the pot population here that sees absolutely nothing ridiciulous in running to everyone else's kitchen to sneer at the kettles.

Heh. I thought this thread was intended to sneer at the pots who say ridiculous things about this board. After all, nobody would have heard about this particular "atrocity story" had someone not gone into the pots' kitchen. It shouldn't be surprising that some of the pots will be happy to return the favor. Maybe we pots are no more ridiculous than the kettles.

[Dale]

At my Community of Christ/RLDS worship services we have sometimes had question time. It has been a useful opportunity to discuss issues of concern. We have had a lot of fun with it. We have discussed tough subjects like Joseph Smith and polygamy. If the LDS members could get such a time going that would be up to them to try. I am not sure LDS members have an interest in people asking questions that don't relate to the class materials. You couldn't add a Question Time to the LDS program time if no interest existed.

LDS wouldn't want to give person's a pulpit for heresy which is understandable. If the person raised questions like some of the posters in question they would have to get kicked out of class.

[Chris Smith]

Heh. I thought this thread was intended to sneer at the pots who say ridiculous things about this board.

Indeed. The original poster in this thread has turned sneering at kettles into an art form. Never mind that she's treading on other people's religious experiences, which is utterly opposed to the alleged ideological basis of this forum.

[selek]

Heh. I thought this thread was intended to sneer at the pots who say ridiculous things about this board. After all, nobody would have heard about this particular "atrocity story" had someone not gone into the pots' kitchen. It shouldn't be surprising that some of the pots will be happy to return the favor. Maybe we pots are no more ridiculous than the kettles.

Knock it off or I'll break out the cast-iron skillet.

Look- it's absolutely plausible that MAD&B has played a role in certain deconversions. Whether that's systematic, endemic, or merely hyperbole is another question entirely.

On the one hand, it's not at all impossible for someone to get in over their head and choke on what they find There is a real premise behind the phrase "milk before meat".

On the other hand, you've got far too many predators given far too much leeway. Look at the trolls, anti's, and poisoners who lurk here unmolested and tell me they are truly impotent in casting doubt and sowing the seeds of dissatisfaction. Do you really think monsters such as Shaf, Bob Betts, and Neighbor are here only to poke the tiger? Of course, not! They're here because they think they have a chance of picking off stragglers- and nothing more.

Do you think spoilers such as Severian are here only to share the misery of their own condescension, or because they think they've actually got a chance of influencing someone? I'm betting it's the latter.

That's why I've been so vocal and passionate in my defense of the Church and my advocacy of the Gospel- because there are liars, fools, and frauds who come here to sow doubt and to lead astray those who are unsure.

MADB- especially with the latitude given to the anti's lately- is, in my opinion, in danger of becoming an annex to the "great and spacious building". We need to keep a sharper eye on who our tenants are. Productive, thoughtful members such as California Kid (and a large handful of others who don't agree with the Church) should be welcomed with open arms.

Spoilers and wreckers such as mms, 4truth, and the rest of that ilk should be chased out with a broom. MADB should be about thoughtful discussion rather than pathetic drive-bys insulting what they cannot enjoy or have rejected.

Silver Dragonfly is a case in point. I and several others tried to be earnest, supportive, and frank- answering her questions honestly and pointing her toward more authoritative sources. Yet she relentlessly focused in on the most negative aspects and obstinately refused to consider that her own prejudices were coloring her reactions.

When others focused in on her negativity and stubborness, the whole mess blew up.

I don't know if she was a troll or not (though more experienced members seem quite certain, and see reason to beleive it), but I felt a personal sense of defeat and loss when she left.

IF she was truly hungering, I don't know that I helped her to go away satisfied. And that eats at me.

But the predators so eager to lead her astray have heaped upon themselves condemnation and damnation. Frankly, I wonder if it is appropriate to provide them a platform to do so. We refuse the sacrament to those who would take it unworthily- lest they condemn themselves. Why do we allow the predators here to act unmolested?

Do we need to be more civil? Certainly.

Do we need to be more compassionate with struggling members? Probably.

Do we need to be less eager in condemning the trolls? Perhaps.

It's the same old story- whether it's the "I have new doubts" story, the "the Church hides its history" story, or the "MADB and my mother-in-law drove me into apostacy" story.

The predators and trolls choose those formulas because there is a grain of truth to them- by adopting the guise of a questioning beleiver they appear to be lost sheep, but inwardly, they are ravening wolves- exactly as we are warned about in Scripture.

Yes- many are what they claim to be, but a great many (some would say the majority) are not. The trick is separating the wheat from the tares.

Indeed. The original poster in this thread has turned sneering at kettles into an art form. Never mind that she's treading on other people's religious experiences, which is utterly opposed to the alleged ideological basis of this forum.

Chris, don't make me reconsider whether to classify you as a thoughtful, contributing member.

You wouldn't like me when I'm angry.

Try posting something more substantive than "how much you don't like Juliann". We've heard that song before.

[phaedrus ut]

From my perspective MADB becomes part of someones "deconversion narrative" only to the extent that LDS apologetics are generally part of that process. From what I've seen most people coming here looking for answers when their attempts so far haven't worked. To them their doubts and questions aren't some clich

[selek]

From my perspective MADB becomes part of someones "deconversion narrative" only to the extent that LDS apologetics are generally part of that process. From what I've seen most people coming here looking for answers when their attempts so far haven't worked. To them their doubts and questions aren't some clich

[Chris Smith]

Chris, don't make me reconsider whether to classify you as a thoughtful, contributing member.

You wouldn't like me when I'm angry.

Try posting something more substantive than how much you don't like Juliann. We've heard that song before.

Juliann said,

I don't want to lose my position of honor in the deep thoughts of the antis...

I figured I could help.

[selek]

Juliann said,

I figured I could help.

I stand corrected (and sit funny, too).

[Doctor Steuss]

FWIW, Iâ??m a doubting member. And in my oft incorrect opinion, the only things that will ultimately have a central role in my deconversion narrative (if such a thing were to ever come to fruition -- G-d forbid) will be me, myself, and I. Well, maybe also consiglieri.

However, I think each of us learn differently. For some, the classroom is the place to â??learnâ? or nourish (or starve) doubts. For others it is books, or journals. For othersâ?¦ itâ??s online message boards.

Some may be looking for confirmation that they are indeed making the right choice to abandon belief. These individuals will probably hone in on posts that are critical of the Church. Others may be looking for confirmation that they are making the right choice to remain within the Church and cling to belief. These individuals will probably hone in on posts that defend the Church. Others may simply like to sit in the briny broth of doubt without necessarily embracing their belief while at the same time not banishing it altogether. These individuals are detestable unctuous individuals of the smarmiest caliber, and usually go by monikers such as â??Doctor Steuss.â?

All-in-all though, Iâ??d imagine that at least a simple majority that happen upon this message board (or any other for that matter) have at least chosen which side of the fence they will ultimately land on and are ultimately looking for additional support to help justify that side (whether pro or con). Occasionally they may find themselves unexpectedly pulled in a direction that they previously hadnâ??t planned on (whether pro or con), but for the most part, I think that deep down, we/they already know whether we/they will maintain belief or not.

[Chris Smith]

Actually, to be quite honest, what really sparked the irritation that resulted in the above outburst was a thread over on MDB where someone was propagating a rumor to the effect that a certain apologist didn't really apostasize because of a message board; the real reason was his pride. At least the person who mentioned the rumor took it over there and confronted him with it. I see threads like this one as an attempt to globally invalidate all deconversion narratives that follow a certain pattern, which is an unacceptable and disrespectful strategy in discussion, however faith-promoting it may ultimately prove.

[phaedrus ut]

Mark your calendar Phaedrus and break out your journal.

You just said something I completely agree with.

Again, though, the trick is separating the wheat from the tares.

I'd wager (though we have no way of proving) that for every earnest seeker, we have ten apostates-in-training show up.

For every earnest believer in danger of being wounded here, we have a hundred malcontents looking only for an excuse.

The real trick is determining which is which.

And I'd agree with you also. From your definition of "apostates-in-training" I assume you mean future exmormons. Strictly from my personal observations it seems that the majority of those coming to the boards eventually fall away. Either resigning formally or deciding to be a "new order mormon". Like you said about one in ten seem to choose to stay and believe.

However I disagree that it's important to know which is which. I think it's important to assume people are honest until you know otherwise and to treat everyone with equal measures of respect.

Phaedrus