The depths of disgusting

[Magyar]

I thought I had seen it all. Sites ranging from slick to sloppy, from seething with hate to simply asking questions. But yesterday I stumbled across a webpage that sinks below them all. Only after a lot of searching is one able to ascertain that the site creator is not a Mormon but actually an avowed atheist. His scheme is to pose as a faithful Mormon, then publish the most ridiculous rot about the Church,then defend these supposed statements in such a backhanded way that the defense becomes an offense. We are familiar with critics building strawmen to attack. But I've never seen a critic go quite so far as to pretend to be his own enemy answering strawman questions.

Is there any depth to which an apostate/hate-monger will not stoop?

[Duncan]

I thought I had seen it all. Sites ranging from slick to sloppy, from seething with hate to simply asking questions. But yesterday I stumbled across a webpage that sinks below them all. Only after a lot of searching is one able to ascertain that the site creator is not a Mormon but actually an avowed atheist. His scheme is to pose as a faithful Mormon, then publish the most ridiculous rot about the Church,then defend these supposed statements in such a backhanded way that the defense becomes an offense. We are familiar with critics building strawmen to attack. But I've never seen a critic go quite so far as to pretend to be his own enemy answering strawman questions.

Is there any depth to which an apostate/hate-monger will not stoop?

Foolish they are

[Pahoran]

I thought I had seen it all. Sites ranging from slick to sloppy, from seething with hate to simply asking questions. But yesterday I stumbled across a webpage that sinks below them all. Only after a lot of searching is one able to ascertain that the site creator is not a Mormon but actually an avowed atheist. His scheme is to pose as a faithful Mormon, then publish the most ridiculous rot about the Church,then defend these supposed statements in such a backhanded way that the defense becomes an offense. We are familiar with critics building strawmen to attack. But I've never seen a critic go quite so far as to pretend to be his own enemy answering strawman questions.

Is there any depth to which an apostate/hate-monger will not stoop?

Actually that's just par for the course.

It's common for anti-Mormons to appear here, posing as active, lifelong members with "just one question" that oh so "sincerely" troubles them. Then the one question becomes two, and then five, and then a laundry list of standard anti-Mormon talking points.

There is a dedicated anti-Mormon who occasionally posts here who, a few years ago, went to a great deal of trouble to set up a website supposedly to "help" investigators and/or less-informed members decide whether the Church was really for them. He went to a great deal of trouble to make it appear even-handed to the unwary. He even boasts of his success in that endeavour. The fact is that a reader who is aware can see his anti-Mormon agenda being assiduously promoted on every page.

Regards,

Pahoran

[LeSellers]

Is there any depth to which an apostate/hate-monger will not stoop?

In a word, no.

They have accused President Hinckley of being a homosexual and never recanted even when it was demonstrated that it was another man.

Lehi

[MorningStar]

Sadly, it's not surprising.

Pahoran, that has been on my mind too. The act gets really old. Faithful members try sincerely to help someone having a doubt or two, but it's not long before they're making one thread after another about everything that makes them unhappy with the church and then that turns to mocking. But you call them on it and they're so upset and hurting to have lost their faith, but it's hard to tell what exactly they're missing about it when they hate the meetings, paying tithing, the way the church reports the tithing coming in, the way the church spends money, the way the church makes them feel guilty for the things they do wrong, etc. So what is it they miss about the church?

My dad left the church, but I never had to listen to him complain about it. He focused on his hobbies and even though he served a mission, he didn't feel like he had wasted his life in the church and saw positive things in it. If someone feels like they wasted their life in the church, it seems it would feel just as wasteful putting so much energy into attacking it, thinking about it, talking about it, and reading about it. Thank goodness my dad never acted like a victim!

[stemelbow]

Sadly it is true people will go to great lengths.

Also sadly, I have seen some LDS practice pretty bad behavior in their efforts to defend the Church.

[Deborah]

I firmly believe that those who leave the church and then begin to blame it for deceiving them, for wasting their time, and for their misery and everything wrong in their lives are actually using the church as a scapegoat for their own or their family's shortcomings.

How many of us have left other churches, some with lifelong membership, and yet not reacted with hostility to what we have since found to be inaccurate teachings? Rather most of us I think are quite happy for the teachings we did have that probably prepared us for the LDS church.

Ducking now for the very vehement denials.

[cinepro]

I thought I had seen it all. Sites ranging from slick to sloppy, from seething with hate to simply asking questions. But yesterday I stumbled across a webpage that sinks below them all. Only after a lot of searching is one able to ascertain that the site creator is not a Mormon but actually an avowed atheist. His scheme is to pose as a faithful Mormon, then publish the most ridiculous rot about the Church,then defend these supposed statements in such a backhanded way that the defense becomes an offense. We are familiar with critics building strawmen to attack. But I've never seen a critic go quite so far as to pretend to be his own enemy answering strawman questions.

Is there any depth to which an apostate/hate-monger will not stoop?

Wait, Jeff Lindsay isn't a Mormon!?

[awesome0]

Or, sometimes people come with legitimate questions. And they often get pushed over to other boards because they are treated like crap for having any doubts and then the NOM's or exmo's welcome them with open arms.

What do we want to guard against? Offending those who are slipping off cliff in regards to their testimonies, or putting up with a few questions from someone who probably used to love the church and feels like they were

betrayed because their gospel manuals, parents, and others had filtered history for them.

[Pahoran]

Sadly it is true people will go to great lengths.

Also sadly, I have seen some LDS practice pretty bad behavior in their efforts to defend the Church.

Funny; I could have sworn that we were having this very same discussion on another thread.

And was that rather vague "pretty bad behaviour" in any way analogous to the brazen deception under discussion?

Regards,

Pahoran

[LifeOnaPlate]

I firmly believe that those who leave the church and then begin to blame it for deceiving them, for wasting their time, and for their misery and everything wrong in their lives are actually using the church as a scapegoat for their own or their family's shortcomings.

How many of us have left other churches, some with lifelong membership, and yet not reacted with hostility to what we have since found to be inaccurate teachings? Rather most of us I think are quite happy for the teachings we did have that probably prepared us for the LDS church.

Ducking now for the very vehement denials.

Religion, conversion, etc. are much too complex on a human level, imo, to be reasonably summed up with this sort of explanation. Reductionism doesn't satisfy me.

[bookofmormontruth]

I thought I had seen it all. Sites ranging from slick to sloppy, from seething with hate to simply asking questions. But yesterday I stumbled across a webpage that sinks below them all. Only after a lot of searching is one able to ascertain that the site creator is not a Mormon but actually an avowed atheist. His scheme is to pose as a faithful Mormon, then publish the most ridiculous rot about the Church,then defend these supposed statements in such a backhanded way that the defense becomes an offense. We are familiar with critics building strawmen to attack. But I've never seen a critic go quite so far as to pretend to be his own enemy answering strawman questions.

Is there any depth to which an apostate/hate-monger will not stoop?

Hence why I see no problem questioning someone's membership. I know, I know so wrong.

At least in this forum there is a moderator. If anyone has seen comments on youtube videos - there are countless "sock puppets" acting like "faithful members". One in particular would sign off as "I'm Justa: Pro-Truth Latter-day Saint" yet would spread anti-Mormon propaganda. He even admitted that he attends sacrament meetings so that his grandfather could pay for his education. Looks like this forum has had and is having the same problem

I am all for honest critics and discussion, but I have no problem when liars are exposed for who they really are. I know, I know so harsh.

[Deborah]

Religion, conversion, etc. are much too complex on a human level, imo, to be reasonably summed up with this sort of explanation. Reductionism doesn't satisfy me.

I don't disagree. But it's because they are complex that I think it's too simplistic to say someone with so much hostility just felt deceived because they happened upon some information that in their 20 years in the church they never heard before, which I think has been shown just isn't so. Certainly in my own life that is true. When I first heard of the multiple accounts of the First Vision I was surprised I'd never heard it before. Then someone pointed out the church magazine article several years ago. Since I would have had that magazine, I obviously at the time didn't care about it. Now that I am more interested in the church history, I pay attention to such things. In any case whenever I heard it it wouldn't have bothered me.

I do know children of divorce, for example, have selective memory, which can alter with new information. I think there is so much more to someone being disaffected that to use the "church deceived me" rationale is just too convenient and simplistic; that is reductionism. Usually such disaffection has many facets and is much more likely due to personal relationships or dissatisfaction with self than information which happens to come along at an opportune time to use as a rationale.

[Avatar4321]

I have never understood why people would decieve others to help them find what they consider "the truth". It's such a contradiction that it just makes no sense to me. But sadly it happens all the time.

I had a discussion with a guy who swore he was a member who found the truth and had no clue what an Elder was.

I had another who was a sad example of an evangelical who claimed to be a former member who converted as an adult and later left the Church when he learned about Baptism for the dead. Only problem is that the principle is clearly in the discussions required to be baptized to begin with.

Many of these people make such obvious mistakes and they expect those who know better to fall for their lies. It's disgusting.

I've said for years, if you honestly disagree with our doctrines, fine. But disagree with us for what we actually believe and don't try to lie to decieve people.

[mfbukowski]

There is a dedicated anti-Mormon who occasionally posts here ...

Was that JD?

I had heard something about that.

[semlogo]

What's this all about, then?

[stemelbow]

Funny; I could have sworn that we were having this very same discussion on another thread.

And was that rather vague "pretty bad behaviour" in any way analogous to the brazen deception under discussion?

Regards,

Pahoran

Analogous only in that it is pretty bad behavior. I suppose we can go about quibbling about the extent of poor behavior as we see it from each side and create some sort of scoreboard to record what we have, but in the end, I'd expect more from LDS believers. So the fact that there would be a scoreboard, alone, offends me.

With that said, I don't condone poor behavior no matter its source. That's not my point, but I am reminded that we ought to figure out a way to fix our own misdeeds before we start cooing over certain dispicable behavior from those that are critics.

[bookofmormontruth]

Analogous only in that it is pretty bad behavior. I suppose we can go about quibbling about the extent of poor behavior as we see it from each side and create some sort of scoreboard to record what we have, but in the end, I'd expect more from LDS believers. So the fact that there would be a scoreboard, alone, offends me.

With that said, I don't condone poor behavior no matter its source. That's not my point, but I am reminded that we ought to figure out a way to fix our own misdeeds before we start cooing over certain dispicable behavior from those that are critics.

And in the end, I expect more from "critics". They need to rise above the "bad behavior" of the LDS believers. In fact, they also need to set a near perfect example for us - anything less is just "despicable behavior".

[consiglieri]

And was that rather vague "pretty bad behaviour" in any way analogous to the brazen deception under discussion?

You're growing tiresome, Pahoran.

You know perfectly well what the "pretty bad behavior" is, who is doing it, and where he is doing it.

It is not "rather vague."

Some of it even got documented on this board before the thread was recently closed when the fire was seen to be singeing the green tree.

You may return to your feigned ignorance . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Nemesis]

You're growing tiresome, Pahoran.

You know perfectly well what the "pretty bad behavior" is, who is doing it, and where he is doing it.

It is not "rather vague."

Some of it even got documented on this board before the thread was recently closed when the fire was seen to be singeing the green tree.

You may return to your feigned ignorance . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Did it happen here?

Nemesis

[AIT]

I can't tell who you all are even talking about. If you mean Ed Decker, nobody takes him seriously. He's one of the only true "Anti-Mormons" I've ever seen.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I thought I had seen it all. Sites ranging from slick to sloppy, from seething with hate to simply asking questions. But yesterday I stumbled across a webpage that sinks below them all. Only after a lot of searching is one able to ascertain that the site creator is not a Mormon but actually an avowed atheist. His scheme is to pose as a faithful Mormon, then publish the most ridiculous rot about the Church,then defend these supposed statements in such a backhanded way that the defense becomes an offense. We are familiar with critics building strawmen to attack. But I've never seen a critic go quite so far as to pretend to be his own enemy answering strawman questions.

Is there any depth to which an apostate/hate-monger will not stoop?

I saw a similar tactic recently used against a fundamentalist Mormon church I am familiar with. Fortunately, they were able to get it removed.

[consiglieri]

Did it happen here?

Nemesis

And how!

[Nemesis]

And how!

http://www.mormondia...d/page__st__253

Had nothing to do with this board but a vendetta that has stemmed from one board and brought over here. I do not read minds and I can assure you I am privi to more info than you are. It's a good thing I am the only one willing not to draw a line and pick sides.

Keep it classy,

Nemesis

But I don't think this is the intent of this thread so get it back on topic.

[Pahoran]

You're growing tiresome, Pahoran.

While you're just a bundle of always-refreshing sameness.

You know perfectly well what the "pretty bad behavior" is, who is doing it, and where he is doing it.

I do not "know perfectly well" that Stemelbow was referring to your obsessive vendetta. Are you privy to something I don't know, or do you just reflexively assume that the only LDS apologist committing "pretty bad behaviour" anywhere is your favourite target?

Because if that's the case, I'd say we're in pretty good shape, aren't we?

Regards,

Pahoran