For those who felt deceived

[Jeff K.]

IIRC, youâ??re the same poster who stated that I had morally and ethically failed in that I joined the church without finding out details about church history beforehand (of course, how I was supposed to find that information in 1976 was not adequately explained). I pointed out to you that I joined the church in the exact manner and process that the church itself encourages and desires. This was verified by statement from other believers.

It was well explained in that time. My original post certainly hasn't been countered by anything you have stated beyond the somewhat lame "my feelings are hurt".

The Church taught basic doctrines. You seemed to have been so overcome in your own emotional whirlwind that you have this deep seated need to blame others for your failure to do what is plainly your responsibilty. The intellect in the 1970's is not significantly less than today. You somewhat shallow error is to presume that because others who have converted to the church down the same path obligates the church somehow to prevail upon you any presumed slight in history. Something that is your responsibility without a doubt. Sadly it appears you still run form that responsibility and look for the flimsiest of excuses.

I do not accept the abrogation of such responsibility, either by myself or others that claim deception by others when it was their own willful blindness.

[Jeff K.]

QUOTE

Moroni revealed all to Christ in but a few settings.

I hope you will explain this statement as it does not seem to make any sense. It seems that you have Christ and Moroni reversed, but even still the statement, â??Christ revealed all to Moroni in but a few settingsâ? is obscure.

QUOTE

Christ revealed all that he was to His apostles in Jerusalem when they first gathered.

Dr. Peterson seems to disagree.

QUOTE

Missionaries must be well versed in both the economic and religious history of the Mormon church to preach doctrine of the church.

Again, others in this thread do not hold this opinion

.

I was being facetious. None of these statements is true. They illustrate an issue raised that somehow all things must be raised prior to any decision being made. In other words it is absurd.

As I have stated:

God is not silly, nor is he absurd, therefore the ideology of absurdism doesn't enter into such things.The Church bears the responsibility to teach of its doctrines to others. It does just that. The history and context is not doctrine, it is absurd (again) to assume the full context is understood and therefore the judgement of history is somehow fixed one way or another. Yet that would be the requirement to stating "this is what we know", which isn't the case. Bushman's last book "Rough Stone Rolling" is reflective of such a view.

You stated:

We are talking about when more is known to have occurred than is typically shared, and the material not shared changes how one would possibly act. Is it ethical for an institution to act otherwise?

Any material can change any opinion since the weight of such material is subjective to the weight placed upon it by the individual. Again, it is absurd to presume that beyond the basic doctrine which the church teaches through missionaries, that somehow questionable context and historicity should also be muddled in the mix.

QUOTE

In regards to undermining individual acts [added for clarity]

Generally it is the Mormons that go against the massive stream of single thought. How easy it would be for Mormons to be thoughtless and allow society to dictate their preferences rather than go against the grain and skip coffee, or live moral and chaste lives, while their neighbors are all about acceptance to the point of adoption in those lifestyles. Mormons aren't mindhive, though they can be deseret, it is society and the flow of information and even intimidation that creates the mindhive.

I find that part of the irony in the last statement.

In your thinking above, you seem to be advocating a certain lose-lose for free will â?? either one subscribes to the doctrines and thinking of the church or one chooses to subscribe to a hypothetical opposite of the churchâ??s doctrine. You have created a false other to which you contrast church doctrine. Not all non-mormons sip coffee, live â??unchasteâ? lives or fall into the polar opposite of your worldview.

In your case, the mindhive may have already won in that you can no longer see that the opposite of your view is pluralistic, not diametric to your worldview. There are also other options from within the LDS body. There is plenty of variety within the LDS membership. I argue only that there is an abdication of personal responsibility when one allows the church to make the decisions for them, or avoids making a choice altogether. The post of mine above gives examples where this occurs

.

No I do not. It might be lose lose if you think that anyone who is not thinking along with society that they are somehow wrong because society seems to be the arbiter of wrong and right. I am not such a relativist.

The opposite of my view is not pluralistic. You mix up the terms. As I have stated, I know gay men that voted for Prop 8. Then of course there are the cultures which are African American, Latino, other religions, other moral stances. You presume that it is all Mormon or not, when in fact 52% of the state that is varied voted in a distinctly different direction. And you call that mindhive? Interesting. Sounds more like petulant accusation from a losing side.

Nor do I believe that there is an abdication in moral responsibility which is personal responsibility. When you argue that you argue that the camp guards had an acceptable reason for being camp guards. The church makes no decision for me, and as far as I know it hasn't made a decision for any member. Not when its core is the ideal that all have a right to choose. Perhaps you can clarify your post in order to show how your examples reflect the point you espouse. I certainly haven't noted the insight.

Now as to the issue of SSM which was thrown into the mix. There are some clear differences between Polygamy and SSM in their contexts. Mormons never asked for state sanction of their marriages or official state recognition. Mormons did not feel that polygamy should be taught in schools as acceptable and equal lifestyles. They were willing to live with the idea of "partnerships" from the state level, just to be left alone. So the point is fallacious at best.

Not how I used the SSM example

.

I know but I wanted to illustrate differences in the attempt of using such a standard. Indeed the church accepts the idea that you can have a polygamous secular marriage if you desire. You just can't be married (or a Mormon) if you do. We will also forget that one was allowed in biblical study and the other has never been allowed. Your example is so weak that you could even include "murder" into the same mindset.

I must reject "institutional responsibility" as one of those items used to help others abrogate their responsibility on a personal level. In religion and morality there is no "institutional responsibility".

Why not? The church does not need to be held to some standard of truth?

If your bank were found to have used your money in a manner that was not fully disclosed to you that appears to have resulted in your loss of assets, would you just shrug it off and take what was left of your money to another bank?

I do not get the sense this is in your personality to do so

.

The standard of truth in a moral setting is personal not institutional, I stated that earlier.

Banks are financial vehicles and their goal is not personal honesty but compliance to financial rules. But allow me to ask this. Would it be unreasonable for me to presume that my bank would tell me everything all other banks have done or are doing before I make my deposit? Would I be absurd to demand this from the bank? Or am I responsible myself to go to all other banks, while the bank president with whom I might speak tells me of their basic financial vehicles and how they can help me with my deposits?

THe mindhive is the one that wishes to put the responsibility or onus upon an institution, when such a view would be absurd almost anywhere.

[Honorentheos]

Would it be unreasonable for me to presume that my bank would tell me everything all other banks have done or are doing before I make my deposit? Would I be absurd to demand this from the bank? Or am I responsible myself to go to all other banks, while the bank president with whom I might speak tells me of their basic financial vehicles and how they can help me with my deposits?

The question, again, is about

-practises that your bank has undertaken with your money that resulted in your loss that they did not disclose to you.

-if you had known of these practises you may have invested in another bank.

-your bank knows that these practises may discourage investors and chooses not to disclose these matters in the up-front brochures.

-in order to protect itself from lawyers, it does disclose this in optional, by request only, material in small print.

The standard of truth in a moral setting is personal not institutional, I stated that earlier.

We agree. Out with churches and in with individual responsibilty.

[Jeff K.]

Then you don't understand Mormons, we are all about personal responsibility.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Raise your hand if you knew there was a poem version of D&C 76 on the 3 degrees of glory presumably written by Joseph Smith.

Is this one of the things the Church is hiding from everyone? Why don't critics complain about this not being made more known?

We agree. Out with churches and in with individual responsibilty.

First, you talk as though they are mutually exclusive. Second, you contradict the New Testament and the words of the apostles of Christ.

[Jeff K.]

QUOTE

Would it be unreasonable for me to presume that my bank would tell me everything all other banks have done or are doing before I make my deposit? Would I be absurd to demand this from the bank? Or am I responsible myself to go to all other banks, while the bank president with whom I might speak tells me of their basic financial vehicles and how they can help me with my deposits?

The question, again, is about

-practises that your bank has undertaken with your money that resulted in your loss that they did not disclose to you.

-if you had known of these practises you may have invested in another bank.

-your bank knows that these practises may discourage investors and chooses not to disclose these matters in the up-front brochures.

-in order to protect itself from lawyers, it does disclose this in optional, by request only, material in small print.

Is the bank supposed to tell me about every "other" bank?

Your assumption is that if it does not, then it is doing something wrong that will make me lose money. You can argue that by not giving me information from other banks I could be making more money elsewhere, but no that is not the banks responsibility, it is mine.

[Honorentheos]

LOAP -As you can see from the post above, the point is directed more to the individual Jeff K and his mindset than to a belief that they are, truly, mutually exclusive.As to the later, I am indifferent. There are sufficient problems with both the Old and New Testaments for another thread.

First, you talk as though they are mutually exclusive. Second, you contradict the New Testament and the words of the apostles of Christ.

Also, at what point does non-disclosure complaints swing immediately to the polar opposite that a person tell everything such as what they had for breakfast? It is a question of pertinence. Most of the issues at hand could effect how a person feels about the church and whether or not it is to be trusted with one's time, talent, and everything with which they have been blessed.

The question, again, is about-practises that your bank has undertaken with your money that resulted in your loss that they did not disclose to you. -if you had known of these practises you may have invested in another bank.-your bank knows that these practises may discourage investors and chooses not to disclose these matters in the up-front brochures.-in order to protect itself from lawyers, it does disclose this in optional, by request only, material in small print.

Is the bank supposed to tell me about every "other" bank? Your assumption is that if it does not, then it is doing something wrong that will make me lose money. You can argue that by not giving me information from other banks I could be making more money elsewhere, but no that is not the banks responsibility, it is mine.

??? Go back and reread my post.

[Abulafia]

Jeff K said:

Again, it is absurd to presume that beyond the basic doctrine which the church teaches through missionaries, that somehow questionable context and historicity should also be muddled in the mix.

Hmm. I can see where you are coming from Jeff. (I didn't much like Davis Bitton's article that deals with this)

It seems to me that the church uses it's history all the time to back up its claims to divinity, validity and authority. Surely the church can't have it both ways.

I taught a specific version of the First Vision as a Missionary in order to indicate that Joseph Smith was called from an early age to be a prophet/messenger of God. I taught that Peter, James and John visited with Joseph in order to restore the Melchizedek Priesthood. I taught (if asked) a particular view of why the early saints practiced polygamy. I taught the Book of Mormon as an ancient book. I taught that Joseph Smith was a prophet almost without fault beyond the foibles of youth. I taught that he was a good, honest, sincere man.

Was I deceiving the investigators at some level in the light of what I know now. Yes. I would say I was. With the best intentions of course, because at the time I felt that the church was the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.

It's a bit of a conundrum.

[beastie]

It was well explained in that time. My original post certainly hasn't been countered by anything you have stated beyond the somewhat lame "my feelings are hurt".

Nothing I posted could have been reasonably construed to mean â??my feelings are hurtâ?. Your charge, given church practices, was so patently ridiculous that no offense could possibly be taken from it, even if offense was intended.

Not only did I counter your assertion, but other believers countered it as well, by demonstrating that the church does, indeed, encourage quick baptisms.

The Church taught basic doctrines. You seemed to have been so overcome in your own emotional whirlwind that you have this deep seated need to blame others for your failure to do what is plainly your responsibilty.

Well, weâ??re just going to repeat ourselves at this point, since you refuse to recognize anything Iâ??ve already said in response to this the first time. I never said the church didnâ??t teach basic doctrines. I said that there were significant issues that I had no way of knowing about and no way of finding out about that I believe are relevant to LDS truth claims. I cannot assume responsibility for doing something that, at that time period and circumstance, would have not been possible to do in the first place. Your assertion that my small college library would have had pertinent microfiches is silly, and that I somehow should have known what sort of information to hunt down sillier.

The intellect in the 1970's is not significantly less than today. You somewhat shallow error is to presume that because others who have converted to the church down the same path obligates the church somehow to prevail upon you any presumed slight in history. Something that is your responsibility without a doubt. Sadly it appears you still run form that responsibility and look for the flimsiest of excuses.

The â??intellectâ? â?? if by that you mean intellectual capacity â??was not significantly less than today, but the material people had access to was significantly less. If you are willing to deny such a simple, obvious fact, that certainly helps explain the frustrations of trying to communicate with you.

I do not accept the abrogation of such responsibility, either by myself or others that claim deception by others when it was their own willful blindness.

This has entered the realm of bizarre. So I was engaging in â??willful blindnessâ? because I was baptized quickly due to a spiritual witness, which is exactly what the church wanted me to do, without having known that I should be looking for information that wasnâ??t even accessible at that time period?

[Deborah]

So I was engaging in â??willful blindnessâ? because I was baptized quickly due to a spiritual witness, which is exactly what the church wanted me to do, without having known that I should be looking for information that wasnâ??t even accessible at that time period?

And yet it was still your choice to listen to the spiritual witness. You also had a choice when you learned things that disturbed you to remember the power of the witness and realize that maybe you didn't have all the facts (and I assure you, you didn't as no one does because the records were very sparse at that time) or to deny the spiritual witness and call it something else. It appears you made the latter choice and traded your birthright for a mess of pottage. And how happy you've been with that choice is questionable because you are still here trying to justify it.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K said:

Hmm. I can see where you are coming from Jeff. (I didn't much like Davis Bitton's article that deals with this)

It seems to me that the church uses it's history all the time to back up its claims to divinity, validity and authority. Surely the church can't have it both ways.

I taught a specific version of the First Vision as a Missionary in order to indicate that Joseph Smith was called from an early age to be a prophet/messenger of God. I taught that Peter, James and John visited with Joseph in order to restore the Melchizedek Priesthood. I taught (if asked) a particular view of why the early saints practiced polygamy. I taught the Book of Mormon as an ancient book. I taught that Joseph Smith was a prophet almost without fault beyond the foibles of youth. I taught that he was a good, honest, sincere man.

Was I deceiving the investigators at some level in the light of what I know now. Yes. I would say I was. With the best intentions of course, because at the time I felt that the church was the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.

It's a bit of a conundrum.

The Church claims there was a great apostasy, that is true. But they do not defer to it as a proof of their divinity, in fact you cannot have a First Vision in which none of the churches were joined unless you had a falling away. It is a catch 22. So there has to some acknowledgement of such or else the premise for starting a church would not exist. Some have pointed to certain evidences of the falling away, such as massive changes in policy and structure, and changes in doctrine which was lost. These are vaguely historical but really no one can claim to show the extact time and place much occurred since there is not surviving documentation that speaks of such things in any detail.

Perhaps you and I taught distinctly, and perhaps I was somewhat less enthusiastic. In my mission I did not teach that Joseph Smith was almost without fault. In fact Joseph Smith was a relatively small actor in connection with the idea that Christ is the center of the Church, that Joseph was a great prophet, true, that he opened a dispensation that he died for, also very true. But from the standpoint of being the vehicle that opened a new era, not the icon of what we should be, that is, of course reserved for Christ. After the First Vision which explains the origin I tended to focus doctrine. And yes, even as a young missionary I held that view.

If you believed you did not deceive, however you might have been misinformed as to the clear context. It is one reason I can engage with Muslims and Baptists and even atheists who are open and clear in their belief. They are sincere and don't seek deception, they may simply be misinformed and sometimes you don't have the information that convinces them (and vice versa).

[LifeOnaPlate]

Raise your hand if you knew there was a poem version of D&C 76 on the 3 degrees of glory presumably written by Joseph Smith.

Is this one of the things the Church is hiding from everyone? Why don't critics complain about this not being made more known?

[peeps]

And how happy you've been with that choice is questionable because you are still here trying to justify it.

I don't presume to speak for beastie on this point, but this seems to be a disingenuous remark, in light of your opening post in which you ask a question and invite those such as beastie to respond, which she did. She did not initiate the conversation - you did. Did you ask the question only to disparage those that opted to engage in your discussion?

[Jeff K.]

Wait peeps, how is the question disingenuous? One can be invited to make a statement, such a statement does not abjure the person from responsibility for their statement. There is no immunity clause.The question was asked in an open ended manner and no one could predict the answers.Now if you believe that somehow the statement in unjust or erroneous in its content then you need to point that out. But simply stating "because you ask you may not inquire further" is much more disingenuous than a follow up question.In fact she pointed an issue that beastie has been at pains to avoid, the question of personal responsibility.

[peeps]

Wait peeps, how is the question disingenuous? One can be invited to make a statement, such a statement does not abjure the person from responsibility for their statement. There is no immunity clause.The question was asked in an open ended manner and no one could predict the answers.Now if you believe that somehow the statement in unjust or erroneous in its content then you need to point that out. But simply stating "because you ask you may not inquire further" is much more disingenuous than a follow up question.In fact she pointed an issue that beastie has been at pains to avoid, the question of personal responsibility.

I found the part I quoted to be an issue. Deborah made a statement regarding the outcome of beastie's choice, citing her being "here trying to justify it" as evidence, when the discussion was initiated by Deborah. Kind of like me asking someone a question, then slamming the mere fact that they answered it as some evidence of their deficiency, regardless of the content of the answer (i.e., "Ha! Because you actually answered my question you must think something other than what you've said!")

Follow-ups and discussion are not an issue; using the fact of invited participation to impugn a participant is.

[ttribe]

I found the part I quoted to be an issue. Deborah made a statement regarding the outcome of beastie's choice, citing her being "here trying to justify it" as evidence, when the discussion was initiated by Deborah. Kind of like me asking someone a question, then slamming the mere fact that they answered it as some evidence of their deficiency, regardless of the content of the answer (i.e., "Ha! Because you actually answered my question you must think something other than what you've said!")

Follow-ups and discussion are not an issue; using the fact of invited participation to impugn a participant is.

I get what you are saying, but your point loses some steam when you are talking about a Board critic with over 2,000 posts and "Pundit" status here.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't presume to speak for beastie on this point, but this seems to be a disingenuous remark, in light of your opening post in which you ask a question and invite those such as beastie to respond, which she did. She did not initiate the conversation - you did. Did you ask the question only to disparage those that opted to engage in your discussion?

beastie has a long history of posting negative criticism of Mormonism on this and other message boards related to Mormonism. If this thread were the first time she had ever done so, your point might be valid.

[Deborah]

Did you ask the question only to disparage those that opted to engage in your discussion?

I asked the question because I really wanted to know. However, if you have read the thread Beastie has repeated her same arguments over and over, no matter how she is answered. It is the repetition I was commenting on.

[peeps]

I asked the question because I really wanted to know. However, if you have read the thread Beastie has repeated her same arguments over and over, no matter how she is answered. It is the repetition I was commenting on.

Fair enough, although I don't think it reasonable for anyone to expect her to change her arguments based on the responses she's seen here. But, that's the rub of the disagreement on this issue, isn't it?

[Scott Lloyd]

Fair enough, although I don't think it reasonable for anyone to expect her to change her arguments based on the responses she's seen here. But, that's the rub of the disagreement on this issue, isn't it?

A reasonable expectation might be that one either come up with something new or let the argument stand as expressed, acknowledge that an impasse has been reached, and then move along.

[peeps]

A reasonable expectation might be that one either come up with something new or let the argument stand as expressed, acknowledge that an impasse has been reached, and then move along.

Sounds reasonable. Which side is going to do this first?

Either way, after 54 pages, I'd expect the discussion has exhausted itself.

[Scott Lloyd]

Sounds reasonable. Which side is going to do this first?

Presumably the one that is on the offensive, i.e. antagonistic critics.

Either way, after 54 pages, I'd expect the discussion has exhausted itself.

Yes, one would think so.

[beastie]

And yet it was still your choice to listen to the spiritual witness. You also had a choice when you learned things that disturbed you to remember the power of the witness and realize that maybe you didn't have all the facts (and I assure you, you didn't as no one does because the records were very sparse at that time) or to deny the spiritual witness and call it something else. It appears you made the latter choice and traded your birthright for a mess of pottage. And how happy you've been with that choice is questionable because you are still here trying to justify it.

Here’s why I have to repeat myself – people like you don’t pay attention to what I said the first time. There are two specific items that you mention in this post that I directly addressed many pages ago:

Deborah:

And how happy you've been with that choice is questionable because you are still here trying to justify it.

On page 1 I stated:

Now, in regards to whether or not my life would have been better or worse had I never joined the LDS church, who knows. There is no way to answer that question. However, I do know I would have made vastly different choices in my life, and spent my money and time very differently (as well as use a different "formula" for choosing a spouse, which was one of those decisions I made through the LDS lens that turned out to be horrifically damaging to my life, although it did bring me three lovely children).

This is a large part of the reason I remain involve in the "mormon scene", so to speak. I would like to offer information to people who may sincerely be looking for information to help them evaluate the church's claims, because I was once in that position myself, and no information was available to me.

So here’s my conundrum. I clearly stated that the reason I continue to participate on LDS boards is to offer information to people who are currently going through the struggle I went through years ago. Losing faith in the LDS church is very difficult for many reasons, and one of those reasons is the constant message from leaders and other believers that if you are doubting, there is something wrong with you. It is extremely painful not only to be forced to alter your entire worldview, but at the same time be constantly told that you’re a flawed person because of that alteration. I was desperate for information as well as contact with other people who could really understand what was happening to me, and since this occurred prior to my access to the internet, it was a challenge finding untainted information (fairly or not, I viewed information from EV sources as suspect), and finding people who could understand and help me was next to impossible. When I did find information and helpful people, I was very grateful. So I have a sense of social obligation to do the same thing for others. So the conundrum is that I’ve already explained this, and here is Deborah making a false statement about my motives and state of life. Am I just supposed to ignore it? If I respond again, I will be accused of repeating myself. If I ignore it, other posters may assume she is making a legitimate point.

I’m pretty certain I’ve also already stated on this thread (or it may have been a similar one) that I’m very happy with my decision. IMO, leaving the LDS church was the hardest decisions I’ve ever made, but it was also the best decision I’ve ever made.

Wait, I did find a post mentioning this on this thread, page 23

I have no doubt that some believers will sneer and roll their eyes at my next statement, but no matter, because it’s true: I have known more peace, contentment, and joy after having left the church and becoming an atheist than I ever knew as a mormon.

Ironically, the following exchange occurred between another poster and myself:

Ttribe:

I'm a believer - why should I sneer and disbelieve your personal account of your own feelings?

My response:

I didn't mean you in particular, of course. Past experience has taught me that some believers tend to insist that critics are unhappy, bitter, etc etc.

Now how prescient was that? I’m really not a psychic; I’ve just had long experience with these sort of discussions.

So knowing that I’m very happy with my decision, how am I supposed to react to a post like Deborah’s? Again, if I respond, people will accuse me of repeating myself. If I ignore it, people may erroneously conclude that she is making a valid point.

I recognize, btw, that this conundrum will never be resolved, so I just respond as I see fit and expect that I will be criticized for responding.

Here’s the second example:

Deborah:

And yet it was still your choice to listen to the spiritual witness. You also had a choice when you learned things that disturbed you to remember the power of the witness and realize that maybe you didn't have all the facts (and I assure you, you didn't as no one does because the records were very sparse at that time) or to deny the spiritual witness and call it something else.

Here again – many pages ago I clearly stated that I do accept personal responsibility for my own decisions. From page 2:

I don't deny the spiritual confirmation I had. I don't deny it occurred, and I don't deny how I interpreted it. But, with the help of additional information (particularly about the chemistry of belief), I interpret it differently.

It's kind of like a 16 year old falling in love, and experiencing all those intense emotions for the first time. No one could tell that 16 year old that part of what he or she is feeling has to do with hormones and brain chemistry, and these strong feelings do not necessarily mean that person is THE ONE. Many years later, with additional life experience and/or other studies, that same person may, and likely will, interpret those same feelings he/she had as a sixteen year old in an entirely different manner. That doesn't mean the person now denies it occurs, or denies that it was intense - it just means he/she interprets it differently years later.

From page 29

Beastie

BTW, I readily admit I was a gullible nineteen year old. I was absolutely gullible for just swallowing the story the missionaries taught me.

Even more striking, on page 34, in direct response to Deborah, I stated this:

I’m not “putting it all on the church”. And, btw, I’d like to know which parts of my story “has holes” - a clear insinuation that I’m lying.

All human beings, including those who run religions, are responsible for their own choices and actions. So while my own gullibility, fueled by my young age and eagerness to resolve the “god question” that had plagued me since my early teens, when I first began to doubt the existence of the god I’d been taught about in the Bible and the Methodist church, can’t be blamed on any external source, that doesn’t negate the church leaders’ responsibility for their own choices and actions.

So again, the conundrum. I have clearly stated that I do not negate my own personal responsibility in this issue. Yet I am once again accused – by the very same poster, no less – of refusing to accept that personal responsibility. So the conundrum is, do I – yet again – correct Deborah’s misperception of my beliefs and attitudes towards this issue? If I do, I am accused of repeating myself. If I don’t, I run the risk of allowing posters to conclude she’s made a valid point.

Here’s my suggestion for those of you who believe I’ve done nothing but repeat myself on this thread: pay attention to what I actually write and stop making erroneous statements about what I’ve said and I’ll stop repeating myself.

(ps, thanks, peeps)

[beastie]

Presumably the one that is on the offensive, i.e. antagonistic critics.

I disagree that the “antagonistic” critics are “on the offensive”. This thread began with a question which I answered. In response, believers analyzed and criticized my answer to that question, at times making statements I view as either a complete distortion of what I’ve said, or to be some outrageous assertion (such as a 19 year old investigator in 1976 should have been able to educate herself on these issues before joining the church). My subsequent remarks have been attempts to address those either erroneous summaries of my statements or outrageous assertions. To me, that is not being “on the offensive”.

In my view, the reason that some believers simply can’t “hear” what I’ve been saying is that while they insist I don’t want to accept personal responsibility for my own actions, despite my own words, what they really want is to deny that the church has any responsibility for the situation. IOW, they want me to say it was all my fault, my negligence (to directly borrow a phrase from one believer) and completely absolve the church. Unless and until I do that, they interpret anything I say as a denial of any personal responsibility.

So let me state one more time – I have learned a lesson from this experience, and I am much more skeptical toward “truth claims” that folks may make, and am far more inclined to do background investigation to obtain information that will help me evaluate those same truth claims. So not only have I taken personal responsibility for this life incident, but have learned from it and altered my behavior.

In fact, while they may not openly admit it, it does seem to me that current church leaders may also recognize some institutional responsibility in this situation, and are altering their own behavior to provide some “inoculation” against these issues.

But there seems to be quite a vocal group of believers on this board who simply cannot admit any responsibility on the part of the church at all. Maybe they’re afraid that will mean the church isn’t true after all – which isn’t even an assertion I’ve ever made or would make.

[ttribe]

Ironically, the following exchange occurred between another poster and myself:

Ttribe:

I still stand by the statement I made to you - I am not presumptuous enough to assume I know better than you what your personal experiences were. Perhaps some will label me "naive"...oh well.