Blog Post: "angry Ex-Mormon-Anti-Mormons"

[Scott Lloyd]

Speaking of strawman fallacy, where did I suggest complete rejection of Isaiah?

 

You wish to use Isaiah to defend present day mockery of others.  I suggested we follow the living Prophets counsel on how we should interact with others.

Where have living prophets approved or mandated or suggested any rejection of Isaiah whatsoever, much less "complete rejection"? Christ said "Great are the words of Isaiah." That's a pretty high commendation; about as high as it gets.

 

And why do you consistently ignore my questions?

Edited October 14, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[tonie]

Where have living prophets approved or mandated or suggested any rejection of Isaiah whatsoever, much less "complete rejection"? Christ said "Great are the words of Isaiah." That's a pretty high commendation; about as high as it gets.

 

And why do you consistently ignore my questions?

 

Again with strawman fallacy. Where did I suggest that anyone should completely reject Isaish?

 

Why do you so doggedly defend mockery of others, when the living Prophets teach against it?

 

Don't do that. You are pot stirring and and you will thread banned for hijacking the thread.

[Scott Lloyd]

Again with strawman fallacy. Where did I suggest that anyone should completely reject Isaish?

 

My question pertained to your use of the use of the phrase "complete rejection," which seemed to imply that rejecting some or most of Isaiah is OK with you.

 

 

Why do you so doggedly defend mockery of others, when the living Prophets teach against it?

 

That's an "are-you-still-beating-your-wife" kind of question, if I've ever seen one. Does twisting someone's meaning or intent build up or tear down that person?

 

Why do you consistently ignore my questions?

Edited October 14, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Garden Girl]

I am continually saddened when I see, hear, read expressions from "faithful" LDS which lack any semblance of compassion. For those parents who disown their gay children or prohibit their children from playing with the unworthy non-LDS or ex-LDS children (even referenced in last conference). My wife asked if I think that really happens because she couldn't fathom it. Sadly, it happens often. Why? Because people are either afraid their family's faith is so fragile it will be disrupted by a non-believer or because people feel righteous by not condoning the sins of others and they mistakenly feel that being kind, charitable, christlike, compassionate give aid and comfort to the sinner. Sad. Sad. Sad.

 

Hello HappyJack...

On the other hand, the other side of the coin if you will... one of my friend's children were excluded from playing with some of the neighborhood children by those children's parents because her children were Mormon.  And some neighborhood gatherings excluded their family...  In fact, those that were allowed to play with my friend's children were not ever to go inside my friend's house...  so it cuts both ways....

 

GG

[HappyJackWagon]

Hello HappyJack...

On the other hand, the other side of the coin if you will... one of my friend's children were excluded from playing with some of the neighborhood children by those children's parents because her children were Mormon.  And some neighborhood gatherings excluded their family...  In fact, those that were allowed to play with my friend's children were not ever to go inside my friend's house...  so it cuts both ways....

 

GG

Thank you Garden Girl. That was exactly my point. Yes, it cuts both ways but when we blame others for ostracizing us or our kids because we're Mormon yet we do the exact same thing because they're not, we have no moral superiority. We should accept that. It is sad that it cuts both ways. We can't impact on how non-members treat mormons but hopefully we CAN have some impact on how Mormons treat non members.

[Calm]

"We" don't do that though. It is against the teachings of the Church to do so. That individual Mormons choose that route…how does that make us as a total group morally equivalent to nonmember families who refuse to interact.

In both cases it is about individuals or rather a subgroup, hopefully small in percentage for both more global category of member and exmember, so why are you applying it to the whole Church as a judgment?

If someone isn't clear that they are only condemning the group on exmembers who behave a certain way for that behaviour, then clarification should be requested and even demanded if the error continues, but if they have been clear and it is the challenger to their claim that turns it into a generic complaint, then it is that one who is in error.

Edited October 14, 2014 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

"We" don't do that though. It is against the teachings of the Church to do so. That individual Mormons choose that route…how does that make us as a total group morally equivalent to nonmember families who refuse to interact.

In both cases it is about individuals or rather a subgroup, hopefully small in percentage for both more global category of member and exmember, so why are you applying it to the whole Church as a judgment?

If someone isn't clear that they are only condemning the group on exmembers who behave a certain way for that behaviour, then clarification should be requested and even demanded if the error continues, but if they have been clear and it is the challenger to their claim that turns it into a generic complaint, then it is that one who is in error.

I've seen this complaint from time to time that Mormons do this, and I've heard the occasional admonition from the pulpit not to do it, but in all my interactions with other Latter-day Saints, I've yet to meet even one who purposely and deliberately forbids his or her children from interacting with other children merely because they are not members of the Church. Perhaps there are some who do; perhaps some I've known do it without owning up to it. But I've never met even one who openly displays that attitude.

 

And let me add that I was born, raised and spent most of my life in the Salt Lake Valley. If such a thing is likely to occur anywhere, one would expect it to occur here, where the population is predominately Mormon.

Edited October 14, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Pahoran]

The minutiae that peeks your interest.

 

Stephen Smoot, Daniel Peterson, are associated with mormoninterperter.com. I am not so sure about Russell Mcgregor's association with mormoninterperter.com. However, all 3 seem apt to resort to derision or ridicule when addressing those they deem critics or anti-mormon.

 

 

Question though, do you consider the use of satire - which is synonymous with mockery, ridicule, derision, scorn, - part of building up another person rather than tearing them down?

Tonie,

If you click on the picture next to your posts, you can view your profile. One of the options when viewing your profile is "Get content."

A scan of your content shows that you rely upon mockery, ridicule and derision at least as much as most posters here.

Incidentally, I have been reliably informed that Russell McGregor is not affiliated with the Interpreter Foundation. And if he has anything in common with Dan Peterson and Bill Hamblin -- more than with any other active Latter-day Saints -- it is only to the extent that he is more maligned than maligning of others.

And I rather suspect you intended to say "piques your interest."

Regards,

Pahoran

[Walden]

I mean I dunno what some of you want us to do? Have you over for pot luck so you can rip my beliefs? So we could talk about the BoA?

 

Actually, just the opposite....what I want the church to do is stop sending missionaries to my home in an attempt to bring me back to the flock. Likewise, stop sending home teachers, visiting teachers, bishopric members, etc to my home (always, always unannounced....who does that besides Mormon's, Jehovah's and door-to-door salesman?) in an attempt to re-convert me.

 

What do I want the church to do....how about honor the "do not contact" letter I sent to the local bishopric as well as SLC.

 

If you come to my home, knock on my door and expect me to spend time with you, and of course without you having the courtesy to call ahead, don't be surprised if I speak my own mind in my own home.

[wenglund]

Actually, just the opposite....what I want the church to do is stop sending missionaries to my home in an attempt to bring me back to the flock. Likewise, stop sending home teachers, visiting teachers, bishopric members, etc to my home (always, always unannounced....who does that besides Mormon's, Jehovah's and door-to-door salesman?) in an attempt to re-convert me.

 

What do I want the church to do....how about honor the "do not contact" letter I sent to the local bishopric as well as SLC.

 

If you come to my home, knock on my door and expect me to spend time with you, and of course without you having the courtesy to call ahead, don't be surprised if I speak my own mind in my own home.

 

For someone who seemingly detest contact with Church members, you sure spend a lot of time interacting with them on this message board. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Walden]

For someone who seemingly detest contact with Church members, you sure spend a lot of time interacting with them on this message board. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

If the board were to show up on my doorstep unannounced on a regular basis, anticipating my undivided attention in a fruitless attempt to reconvert me, despite my written request against such activity, I would likely hold a grudge against the board as well.

[Teancum]

Dan Peterson on his blog linked to this blog post by Chet Cannon.

 

It's hilarious enough on its own.

 

But the real howler is that a number of enraged persons immediately jump in to rail against it in their online comments, thereby exemplifying through personal behavior the very thing that Cannon has just finished lampooning!

 

 

It is a funny article and a broad brush caricature as well. Some who leave the church portray what he talks about. Some don't.  However, it seems that the active LDS person or the apologist simply want someone who is disaffected from the Church to just shut up about the Church no matter how they say it.

 

Ex members or those who for whatever reason are no longer believers likely invested a whole lot of time, money and energy into the Church. They may have honest and reasonable positions for discussing the Church and what they deem to be bad or damaging about it. That does not make them enraged or angry though there is an element of anger for many initially. 

 

Also often the Church won't leave them alone. Home teachers still show up, there is a process to go through to have names taken off the records, activation attempts by missionaries may occur, active family members may not be accepting or attempt to reactivate.  All that is fine in the active believers mind but it is not fine for the disaffected member to be critical of the Church no matter how they do it.

[wenglund]

If the board were to show up on my doorstep unannounced on a regular basis, anticipating my undivided attention in a fruitless attempt to reconvert me, despite my written request against such activity, I would likely hold a grudge against the board as well.

 

Apart from missing my point, people are free to hold whatever grudges that suit their fancy, and they ought not be denied their self-imposed misery (we can't control what others may do to us, though we can chose how we react thereto, emotionally or otherwise).

 

Since you seem thus inclined, may you be blessed with an abundance of ill-will and antipathy towards any and all who have your best interest at heart.  

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund- 

[wenglund]

It is a funny article and a broad brush caricature as well. Some who leave the church portray what he talks about. Some don't.  However, it seems that the active LDS person or the apologist simply want someone who is disaffected from the Church to just shut up about the Church no matter how they say it.

 

Ex members or those who for whatever reason are no longer believers likely invested a whole lot of time, money and energy into the Church. They may have honest and reasonable positions for discussing the Church and what they deem to be bad or damaging about it. That does not make them enraged or angry though there is an element of anger for many initially. 

 

Also often the Church won't leave them alone. Home teachers still show up, there is a process to go through to have names taken off the records, activation attempts by missionaries may occur, active family members may not be accepting or attempt to reactivate.  All that is fine in the active believers mind but it is not fine for the disaffected member to be critical of the Church no matter how they do it.

 

If the article was in regards to former members in general, rather than specific to angry-anti-ex-Mormons, then your criticism about "broad brush" may be warranted.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

T

Incidentally, I have been reliably informed that Russell McGregor is not affiliated with the Interpreter Foundation. And if he has anything in common with Dan Peterson and Bill Hamblin -- more than with any other active Latter-day Saints -- it is only to the extent that he is more maligned than maligning of others.

Regards,

Pahoran

Rofl.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Actually, just the opposite..

But that isn't just the opposite, is it.

[Walden]

Apart from missing my point, people are free to hold whatever grudges that suit their fancy, and they ought not be denied their self-imposed misery (we can't control what others may do to us, though we can chose how we react thereto, emotionally or otherwise).

 

Since you seem thus inclined, may you be blessed with an abundance of ill-will and antipathy towards any and all who have your best interest at heart.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund- 

 

Please, there are any number of solicitations that I receive on a daily basis from people who assure me they have my best interests at heart...I get calls from calls from telemarketers, visits from salesman, visits from Jehovah's, visits from Mormons, calls for political/social/welfare contributions and solicitations, etc., etc., all of whom are schlepping a product that they are certain will change my life for the better.

 

The difference with the telemarketers, salesman, etc. is that they generally adhere to a "no call" list when I have made such a request....no such luck with the LDS church.

 

And for the record, it doesn't cause me misery, it is just inconvenient, though occasionally amusing, but definitely rude to continue to stop by unannounced without inquiring if I am available, particularly after I have requested in writing for this activity to cease.

 

And I will remember your edict about having people's "best interest at heart" when I share the story of my de-conversion and eventual withdrawal from the church with the next missionary who comes to my door with that timid, deer in a headlights look that betrays his feigned loyalties.....I mean, really, I just have his best interest at heart and don't want him making the same mistakes as me with regard to feigned belief in the church due to social/family/etc. pressures.

[Teancum]

If the article was in regards to former members in general, rather than specific to angry-anti-ex-Mormons, then your criticism about "broad brush" may be warranted.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Well is seemed to me that many who would not fall into the category of angry ex Mormons would be put into it by what seemed like a broad brush caricature.  Just my take.  I could be wrong. I often am.

[wenglund]

Please, there are any number of solicitations that I receive on a daily basis from people who assure me they have my best interests at heart...I get calls from calls from telemarketers, visits from salesman, visits from Jehovah's, visits from Mormons, calls for political/social/welfare contributions and solicitations, etc., etc., all of whom are schlepping a product that they are certain will change my life for the better.

 

The difference with the telemarketers, salesman, etc. is that they generally adhere to a "no call" list when I have made such a request....no such luck with the LDS church.

 

And for the record, it doesn't cause me misery, it is just inconvenient, though occasionally amusing, but definitely rude to continue to stop by unannounced without inquiring if I am available, particularly after I have requested in writing for this activity to cease.

 

And I will remember your edict about having people's "best interest at heart" when I share the story of my de-conversion and eventual withdrawal from the church with the next missionary who comes to my door with that timid, deer in a headlights look that betrays his feigned loyalties.....I mean, really, I just have his best interest at heart and don't want him making the same mistakes as me with regard to feigned belief in the church due to social/family/etc. pressures.

 

Suit yourself. Just don't expect me to do myself the disservice of counter-productively holding a grudge regardless of your intents. From past experience I have learned that the quality of my life is lessened when I turn over the disposition of my emotions to other people and take offence when none was intended. But, to each their own. Again, may you live long and prosper stewing in your negative juices.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Avatar4321]

So we treat you badly because we care about you enough to visit you and teach you the truth, yet se deserved the a ger and criticism because we shun you and cut off all our ties from you. We are supposed to honor requests not to contact you despite the fact that you knew when you joined the church that we would contact you so long as you are a member and can easily change that by requesting your name off the record.

then you get upset when someone accurately portrays such illogical behavior in a blog piece no one cares about.

if you want visits to stop then feel free to leave the church. But if you don't want to, then don't get angry that people care enough to visit you