ex mormon Honest discussion about disdain

[Guest]

I have often waded into the turbulent, angry and shallow waters of debate among "never-mo's" and "ex-mo's". As offensive as websites dedicated to attacking, or debunking our Faith, their behavior often pales in comparison to those who once called us "brother or sisters", and now cannot contain, or constrain their behavior. By no means are these the actions of all who fall away, the norm. Some drift away, some fall away, and the minority esteem us, and our Faith as their sworn enemy, who deserves no mercy. It is this dark well, from which they drink, and the darkness that cannot receive light, so many find themselves seeking light from any source. But, I still love them, I still call them "brother and sister", which in many cases causes them to hate even more. But my love remains, my prayers still ascend, and my forgiveness quick. Beyond this, I do not know the answers. 

[Foreigner]

14 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

It seems to me that Mormons spend a lot of time and energy fighting to be in the Christian camp.

Mormons as well as Catholics have their own history of apostasy. In BoM, Alma 46, there is one and only name to be taken on: “Christian”. It is repeated three times, so that is very important. The same is strongly emphasized in 3 Nephi 27 with admonition  - not to take “the name of a man”.  And yet the Mormons willfully have taken the name of a man, even making a new religion in the name. This is the sign of apostasy. Not alone.

Without their apostasy, Mormonism as well as Catholicism could be one -  Christianism. I think the time is near.

[Meerkat]

32 minutes ago, Foreigner said:

The same is strongly emphasized in 3 Nephi 27 with admonition  - not to take “the name of a man”.  And yet the Mormons willfully have taken the name of a man, even making a new religion in the name. This is the sign of apostasy. Not alone.

What are you talking about?  Please clarify.

Edited November 5, 2017 by Meerkat

[thesometimesaint]

36 minutes ago, Foreigner said:

Mormons as well as Catholics have their own history of apostasy. In BoM, Alma 46, there is one and only name to be taken on: “Christian”. It is repeated three times, so that is very important. The same is strongly emphasized in 3 Nephi 27 with admonition  - not to take “the name of a man”.  And yet the Mormons willfully have taken the name of a man, even making a new religion in the name. This is the sign of apostasy. Not alone.

 

Without their apostasy, Mormonism as well as Catholicism could be one -  Christianism. I think the time is near.

 

The name of the Church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We were nicknamed Mormons by our enemies. We just made it into a compliment. BTW The Bible refers to the Saints in Corinth, etc., etc., etc.. Christian was a insult that was turned into a compliment.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Foreigner said:

Mormons as well as Catholics have their own history of apostasy. In BoM, Alma 46, there is one and only name to be taken on: “Christian”. It is repeated three times, so that is very important. The same is strongly emphasized in 3 Nephi 27 with admonition  - not to take “the name of a man”.  And yet the Mormons willfully have taken the name of a man, even making a new religion in the name. This is the sign of apostasy. Not alone.

 

Without their apostasy, Mormonism as well as Catholicism could be one -  Christianism. I think the time is near.

 

This is a dumb statement.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

I think distain comes from missionaries bugging people who don't want to hear about it. Distain also comes from misguided rescue efforts by family when the "lost" believe the rescuers are the ones in need of rescuing. Distain can also be experienced by persons being disowned for leaving. Nevertheless, church members shouldn't be surprised by this when they believe they are right and everyone else is wrong.

[Foreigner]

2 hours ago, Meerkat said:

What are you talking about?  Please clarify.

Simply, taking the name "Mormon" and naming religion as "Mormonism" is wrong by itself and prohibited by Scriptures. Still, I know that cultural Mormons cannot imagine what it is about.

[Physics Guy]

13 hours ago, Meerkat said:

I hesitate to ask, but isn't the above statement the definition of disdain?  Check the context in Physics Guy's post.  Maybe this isn't exactly exactly what he intended to come across.  I thought it was an interesting statement, considering the subject "An honest discussion about Disdain."  Freudian slip?

It was no slip. I was explaining bluntly what causes disdain. That seemed to be the intent of the thread: honest discussion.

Please note my "ifs". What I said was that if one can only choose between con man and prophet for Smith, then those who do not choose prophet are bound to see those who do choose prophet as people who are revering a con man. Religious impostors have been stock figures of scorn in literature for centuries—and their followers even more so. If people believe that Joseph Smith was an impostor, then they can't very well respect Mormonism. And so if the only alternative to Smith being a prophet is Smith being an impostor, then by definition non-Mormons will have disdain for Mormonism.

There's a similar issue with Jesus. Those who consider Jesus a fraud or a nutcase are disdainful of Christianity. Those who consider Jesus a great human being, but not God incarnate, tend to respect Christianity, even though they're not Christians. But one of the favorite arguments of Christian apologists, including C.S. Lewis, has long been the line aut Deus, aut homo malus ("either God or a bad man"). This apologetic argument in favor of Christianity has explicitly been to eliminate the middle ground of Jesus being a respectable human being, and make out that if he were not God in human flesh, then he can only have been a fraud or a nutcase.

That's a strategy that deliberately accepts disdain from non-Christians, in the hope of making a few more of them into Christians. Maybe Mormons are willing to live with that kind of situation for Joseph Smith, as C.S. Lewis and other mainstream Christian apologists have been willing to live with it for Jesus Christ.

If Christians want to win respect from non-Christians, however, they have to reject the aut Deus aut homo malus argument, and emphasize all the things that would allow non-Christians to accept Jesus as an admirable human being. They can still go on to argue that Jesus was even more than that, but they have to spend some time talking about the things that would make Jesus impressive even if he were merely human. In a similar way, if Mormons want to make Mormonism respectable to non-Mormons, they have to present good grounds for respecting Joseph Smith even without accepting him as a prophet, and for admiring the Book of Mormon even without accepting it as divine revelation.

I said that I hadn't seen much of that kind of "neutral apologetics" from Mormons. I didn't mean to imply that it couldn't exist. For example, the famous Yale literary critic Harold Bloom is not Mormon, but I've read a statement by him about greatly enjoying the Book of Mormon for its style. So maybe a case can be made for the Book of Mormon as fine literature. And maybe Mormons who hold to a "loose control" theory of Smith's translation effort could present Smith as a great writer who turned ancient Hebrew-Egyptian into remarkable English.

There's a risk in that strategy, of course. Along with winning over some people who would otherwise have disdained Smith and getting them to respect him as a good man instead, one might lose a few people who would otherwise have accepted Smith as a prophet, by prompting them to think of him instead as just a good man. Maybe that risk is too great to run. Maybe it's worth enduring the disdain of a hundred scornful non-Mormons in order to save one Mormon from sliding into respectful non-Mormonism. My remark about accepting disdain was a sincere suggestion that this might be the right strategy, from a Mormon point of view.

Edited November 5, 2017 by Physics Guy

[The Nehor]

52 minutes ago, Foreigner said:

Simply, taking the name "Mormon" and naming religion as "Mormonism" is wrong by itself and prohibited by Scriptures. Still, I know that cultural Mormons cannot imagine what it is about.

Are you seriously under the delusion that this is a clever observation?

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I think distain comes from missionaries bugging people who don't want to hear about it. Distain also comes from misguided rescue efforts by family when the "lost" believe the rescuers are the ones in need of rescuing. Distain can also be experienced by persons being disowned for leaving. Nevertheless, church members shouldn't be surprised by this when they believe they are right and everyone else is wrong.

I am not surprised. It is utterly predictable, is the status quo, and is also very sad.

[Meerkat]

2 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

It was no slip. I was explaining bluntly what causes disdain. That seemed to be the intent of the thread: honest discussion.

Please note my "ifs". What I said was that if one can only choose between con man and prophet for Smith, then those who do not choose prophet are bound to see those who do choose prophet as people who are revering a con man. Religious impostors have been stock figures of scorn in literature for centuries—and their followers even more so. If people believe that Joseph Smith was an impostor, then they can't very well respect Mormonism. And so if the only alternative to Smith being a prophet is Smith being an impostor, then by definition non-Mormons will have disdain for Mormonism.

There's a similar issue with Jesus. Those who consider Jesus a fraud or a nutcase are disdainful of Christianity. Those who consider Jesus a great human being, but not God incarnate, tend to respect Christianity, even though they're not Christians. But one of the favorite arguments of Christian apologists, including C.S. Lewis, has long been the line aut Deus, aut homo malus ("either God or a bad man"). This apologetic argument in favor of Christianity has explicitly been to eliminate the middle ground of Jesus being a respectable human being, and make out that if he were not God in human flesh, then he can only have been a fraud or a nutcase.

That's a strategy that deliberately accepts disdain from non-Christians, in the hope of making a few more of them into Christians. Maybe Mormons are willing to live with that kind of situation for Joseph Smith, as C.S. Lewis and other mainstream Christian apologists have been willing to live with it for Jesus Christ.

If Christians want to win respect from non-Christians, however, they have to reject the aut Deus aut homo malus argument, and emphasize all the things that would allow non-Christians to accept Jesus as an admirable human being. They can still go on to argue that Jesus was even more than that, but they have to spend some time talking about the things that would make Jesus impressive even if he were merely human. In a similar way, if Mormons want to make Mormonism respectable to non-Mormons, they have to present good grounds for respecting Joseph Smith even without accepting him as a prophet, and for admiring the Book of Mormon even without accepting it as divine revelation.

I said that I hadn't seen much of that kind of "neutral apologetics" from Mormons. I didn't mean to imply that it couldn't exist. For example, the famous Yale literary critic Harold Bloom is not Mormon, but I've read a statement by him about greatly enjoying the Book of Mormon for its style. So maybe a case can be made for the Book of Mormon as fine literature. And maybe Mormons who hold to a "loose control" theory of Smith's translation effort could present Smith as a great writer who turned ancient Hebrew-Egyptian into remarkable English.

There's a risk in that strategy, of course. Along with winning over some people who would otherwise have disdained Smith and getting them to respect him as a good man instead, one might lose a few people who would otherwise have accepted Smith as a prophet, by prompting them to think of him instead as just a good man. Maybe that risk is too great to run. Maybe it's worth enduring the disdain of a hundred scornful non-Mormons in order to save one Mormon from sliding into respectful non-Mormonism. My remark about accepting disdain was a sincere suggestion that this might be the right strategy, from a Mormon point of view.

Thank you for taking the time to respond.  This helps me understand what you said earlier.  It is thought provoking and helpful.  Much appreciated.

Edited November 6, 2017 by Meerkat

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Foreigner said:

Simply, taking the name "Mormon" and naming religion as "Mormonism" is wrong by itself and prohibited by Scriptures. Still, I know that cultural Mormons cannot imagine what it is about.

As you know full well that name was bestowed by enemies of the Church and is not the name we've "taken."

Edited November 5, 2017 by JLHPROF

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Foreigner said:

Simply, taking the name "Mormon" and naming religion as "Mormonism" is wrong by itself and prohibited by Scriptures. Still, I know that cultural Mormons cannot imagine what it is about.

Boy are you clueless. The name of the church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  It is not the Mormon church.  Never has been.  It is a nickname given by others.  It is NOT Mormon's church. He would be embarrassed to have the church referred to even unofficially by his name.

[changed]

Holy God, we believe that thou hast separated us from our brethren; and we do not believe in the tradition of our brethren, which was handed down to them by the childishness of their fathers; but we believe that thou hast elected us to be thy holy children; 17 But thou art the same yesterday, today, and forever; and thou hast elected us that we shall be saved, whilst all around us are elected to be cast by thy wrath down to hell; for the which holiness, O God, we thank thee; and we also thank thee that thou hast elected us, that we may not be led away after the foolish traditions of our brethren, which doth bind them down to a belief of Christ, which doth lead their hearts to wander far from thee, our God. And again we thank thee, O God, that we are a chosen and a holy people. Amen.

↑ that is the premise of quite a few talks I have heard in church, "I am so thankful that my family is so wonderful, my wife is wonderful, my children are all married in the temple and wonderful, and I know that my family is saved because we are soooo righteous... I know that this is the true church, that we are the chosen people"

Edited November 5, 2017 by changed

[The Nehor]

58 minutes ago, changed said:

Holy God, we believe that thou hast separated us from our brethren; and we do not believe in the tradition of our brethren, which was handed down to them by the childishness of their fathers; but we believe that thou hast elected us to be thy holy children; 17 But thou art the same yesterday, today, and forever; and thou hast elected us that we shall be saved, whilst all around us are elected to be cast by thy wrath down to hell; for the which holiness, O God, we thank thee; and we also thank thee that thou hast elected us, that we may not be led away after the foolish traditions of our brethren, which doth bind them down to a belief of Christ, which doth lead their hearts to wander far from thee, our God. And again we thank thee, O God, that we are a chosen and a holy people. Amen.

↑ that is the premise of quite a few talks I have heard in church, "I am so thankful that my family is so wonderful, my wife is wonderful, my children are all married in the temple and wonderful, and I know that my family is saved because we are soooo righteous... I know that this is the true church, that we are the chosen people"

I have my doubts that you have heard such a talk.

[Hamba Tuhan]

30 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I have my doubts that you have heard such a talk.

Oh, I believe that she has heard such a talk. I just doubt that the people she has in mind actually said such things.

[Maestrophil]

On 11/4/2017 at 12:43 PM, california boy said:

I am not sure if discussing what is driving this distain for Mormonism is a healthy discussion.  I think it puts members on the defense and mostly just disagree with the reasons why others don't like the Mormon church.  When the church polls as the most disliked christian church in America, perhaps the discussion should be more centered around what the church could do to gain more respect in the community.  I think that if there needs to be a change, it has to come from the church and the members themselves, and not from the outside.  And actually I think most members don't think anything should change.  They write these kinds of comments off as nothing more than some anti-Mormon hater.  

When I was active and involved in the church, I had very much the same attitude.  People outside the church would generally react favorably when I told them I was Mormon.  But I found out that they were saying what they though I wanted to hear.  Because after I left the church and told them that I used to be Mormon, the comments were more in line with what the polls are suggesting. 

I am pretty aware that Mormonism is seen as odd in the world at large, but, again, my question is, how come people seem so angry, and seem to be permitted to lash out at, Mormons as individuals or a people?

 

If the BOM musical were about Jews, or Muslims, or Black Pentecostals, I think there would be a lot of people raising more of a concern and/or defending the Mormons.  (not that I am concerned about the musical myself, just using it as an example).  Or if I was on the Youtube conversation I mentioned in the OP, and I was jewfish and someone came at me with insults about how all Jews were evil and deserved persecution, I think there would be people coming to support me that are not necessarily Jews themselves.  Do mormons fit in a different class?

[Maestrophil]

On 11/4/2017 at 5:37 PM, Physics Guy said:

At least as I understand it, all the big differences between Mormonism and mainstream Christianity are based on revelations to Joseph Smith. And even though few of those big differences come from the Book of Mormon itself, by far the biggest reason for believing that Smith was a prophet seems to be that one is so impressed by the Book of Mormon as to think it must be a divine revelation. 

By definition non-Mormons don't believe Joseph Smith was a prophet, and we don't see anything superhuman about the Book of Mormon. We should still be polite to Mormons, no matter what we may think about them, deep down. And there are many Mormons who are personally convincing if you get to know them, in the sense that one has to give their religion the benefit of the doubt for their sake. But can non-Mormons respect Mormonism itself, as a reasonable and responsible viewpoint?

I think this depends on what exactly Joseph Smith was, if he wasn't a prophet, and on what exactly the Book of Mormon is, if it isn't a divine revelation. If one can make the case that Smith was a good person, and that the Book of Mormon is a good book, then it's not so hard for non-Mormons to feel that Mormons have overestimated Smith and the Book, but not ridiculously overestimated them—perhaps not even unreasonably. But if the only thing Smith can be, if he wasn't a prophet, is a con artist who exploited women, then it's hard for non-Mormons to respect people that revere Smith so much. And if the only thing the Book of Mormon can be, if it isn't true Scripture, is poor Bible fan-fiction, then it's hard for non-Mormons to respect people that admire the Book of Mormon so much.

Maybe there's nothing to do but accept that. But if there's a desire to have genuine respect from non-Mormons, then I think the way to get it is by could be called neutral apologetics. What I mean is this.

Positive Mormon apologetics tries to defend Smith and the Book of Mormon as prophet and Scripture. Negative apologetics seeks to defend them against the charges of being con man and fake. Neither of those kinds of apologetics are about establishing Smith or the Book as simply good rather than bad. Making that more moderate case, that won't gain any converts but might gain respect, would be in between positive and negative apologetics. So call it neutral apologetics, I guess.

Neutral apologetics would mean leaving it for later to argue that Smith was a prophet, and just presenting all the ways in which he was a good man apart from his prophethood. Leave it for later to argue whether he had true revelations from God, and just explain the admirable new moral principles which he introduced. Leave it for later to argue that the Book of Mormon is genuine Scripture, or genuine history, and just present its impressive stories, images, precepts, and poetry.

If Mormons can do that, I think that non-Mormons will respect Mormonism. But don't Mormons already do that? Well, in my experience, honestly: not so much.

I've heard a lot more about how the Book of Mormon has chiasmus and Hebraic wordplay than about what it has that would still be awesome even if Joseph Smith somehow did make it up. I've heard a lot more about why Joseph Smith could not have produced the Book of Mormon than I have about good things he said or did apart from the Book.

That may well not be Mormons' fault. Perhaps the wonderful pearls among Book of Mormon passages are too familiar to Mormons to get brought up much; perhaps Mormons have too much reverence for Joseph Smith's supernatural excellences to spend much time discussing his merely natural achievements or virtues. For whatever reasons, though, my own discussions with Mormons have been focused on whether Smith was a prophet or a fraud, and whether the Book of Mormon is a revelation or a hoax, rather than on whether Smith or the Book was simply good versus bad. Perhaps neutral apologetics is a neglected middle ground.

Interesting take.  Wouldn't;t you say the is what the LDS Church is doing officially?  I rarely hear the church as an institution talking about chiasmus or kinder hook plates etc, but I do hear them talk mostly about the joy of the gospel, eternal families, joy and purpose in life etc.  It does not seem to be helping people who have disdain for the church to calm their apparent anger/hostility.  Why not, do you think?

[Maestrophil]

20 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

It was no slip. I was explaining bluntly what causes disdain. That seemed to be the intent of the thread: honest discussion.

 

And I very much appreciate the honest approach!  

Edited November 6, 2017 by Maestrophil

[Maestrophil]

21 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I think distain comes from missionaries bugging people who don't want to hear about it. Distain also comes from misguided rescue efforts by family when the "lost" believe the rescuers are the ones in need of rescuing. Distain can also be experienced by persons being disowned for leaving. Nevertheless, church members shouldn't be surprised by this when they believe they are right and everyone else is wrong.

Honestly?  Why is this such a hardship for people?  I am trying to understand.  On a FB discussion recently, an old High school friend was complaining that the missionaries looked her up and had her name, even though she has been gone from church life for decades.  She lamented, threatened legal action against the church, and resentment that her family might be behind the visits.  Then my own brother chimed in and said he sometimes gets visits too, and hoped it was not ME sending the elders.  I responded that 1. why would i send poor elders to someone who doesn't want to see them, and 2. If someone's big life problem is a once a year visit from he mormons, then their life is pretty cushy!!

Honestly, if once a year I got a visit from any other religious group, I might get mildly annoyed, but not distressed to the point of legal action and anger - I probably would be nice, have a little talk and bid them good day.  I definitely would not use the visits as an excuse to be angry at every member of that organization.  

[Brother Bear]

27 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

I am pretty aware that Mormonism is seen as odd in the world at large, but, again, my question is, how come people seem so angry, and seem to be permitted to lash out at, Mormons as individuals or a people?

 

If the BOM musical were about Jews, or Muslims, or Black Pentecostals, I think there would be a lot of people raising more of a concern and/or defending the Mormons.  (not that I am concerned about the musical myself, just using it as an example).  Or if I was on the Youtube conversation I mentioned in the OP, and I was jewfish and someone came at me with insults about how all Jews were evil and deserved persecution, I think there would be people coming to support me that are not necessarily Jews themselves.  Do mormons fit in a different class?

The hostile person you encountered on the Mormon Stories site used an argument and language that is straight out of the “new atheists” textbook; in fact, I think I’ve heard Dawkins or Krauss use pretty much the same wording. This kind of language is used all over YouTube, reddit, twitter, comment sections of news sites, etc against Christians of all stripes, Muslims, and others. I don’t think Mormons are being targeted more than others, or receiving stronger criticism from this crowd than others. Anyone who doesn’t speak of scientism in hushed, reverent tones will likely be called delusional and their beliefs labeled worthy of mockery and insult. It’s rather frustrating...and the irony is quite comical.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

12 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

Honestly?  Why is this such a hardship for people?  I am trying to understand.  On a FB discussion recently, an old High school friend was complaining that the missionaries looked her up and had her name, even though she has been gone from church life for decades.  She lamented, threatened legal action against the church, and resentment that her family might be behind the visits.  Then my own brother chimed in and said he sometimes gets visits too, and hoped it was not ME sending the elders.  I responded that 1. why would i send poor elders to someone who doesn't want to see them, and 2. If someone's big life problem is a once a year visit from he mormons, then their life is pretty cushy!!

Honestly, if once a year I got a visit from any other religious group, I might get mildly annoyed, but not distressed to the point of legal action and anger - I probably would be nice, have a little talk and bid them good day.  I definitely would not use the visits as an excuse to be angry at every member of that organization.  

I obviously can't speak for everyone as to why certain persons get upset at missionary visits. I just know it's out there like you just relayed in the above. I view it like the dread certain persons feel when the bishop's secretary calls to set up an interview. They may not want a calling or may feel their business isn't the bishop's business. In any event they don't like the intrusion. Missionary visits could represent church intrusion to the less active or resigned and they don't want it and they certainly don't want the visit if it was generated from family seeking to find the lost when they probably think they aren't lost.

I recently got a call from the missionaries and I am fine with them coming by. I plan on being polite but I will let them know my views if asked. So for me a missionary visit isn't the worst thing in the world.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Maestrophil said:

Honestly?  Why is this such a hardship for people?  I am trying to understand.  On a FB discussion recently, an old High school friend was complaining that the missionaries looked her up and had her name, even though she has been gone from church life for decades.  She lamented, threatened legal action against the church, and resentment that her family might be behind the visits.  Then my own brother chimed in and said he sometimes gets visits too, and hoped it was not ME sending the elders.  I responded that 1. why would i send poor elders to someone who doesn't want to see them, and 2. If someone's big life problem is a once a year visit from he mormons, then their life is pretty cushy!!

Honestly, if once a year I got a visit from any other religious group, I might get mildly annoyed, but not distressed to the point of legal action and anger - I probably would be nice, have a little talk and bid them good day.  I definitely would not use the visits as an excuse to be angry at every member of that organization.  

I think it comes from the human tendency to assume that other people can read our minds and should just know how best to meet our needs.  

Seriously though, I've heard as many "i was struggling and hadn't been to church in a long time and no one bothered to call!  No one showed up to visit!  No one called to ask me what was wrong!  Obviously they are not real Christians or they wouldn't be ignoring me!" complaints as i've heard "I haven't been to church in a long time and I still get people calling me or stopping by to visit!  Why won't they leave me alone!" ones.

I think it helps if the missionaries are keeping good records.  Usually then you can cut down on unwanted visits and just check in on people every couple of years or so.  If that level of contact makes then mad, then they really need to have their names removed.

[rockpond]

On 11/2/2017 at 4:47 PM, Maestrophil said:

So I made the mistake of commenting on the new Mormon Stories interview with Mike Norton.  It struck me in listening to his comments, as well as reading viewer comments how condescending to believers Mikes' entire approach is.  And Mike is at least 'pretending' to be civil - the commenters, not so much.  The last guy that commented, after I kind of asked why Mike was being so condescending to members said:

"Phillip Linford if you’re a part of an institution responsible for the suicides of young people, the divorce of otherwise happy couples, blatant dishonestly regarding their own history and many, many other distrusting things, I think your intelligence should be insulted. Do you know what the world thinks of Mormonism? It’s. It what you think. People think mormons are small brained fools."

I responded saying "at least you are honest about your arrogance" - probably not the most high minded reply on my part... His answer:

"Phillip arrogance, huh? What I’m saying is verifiable. I have science, facts and reality on my side. You have your feelings."

I would love to have really frank discussion about this here.  What are your views about this kind of treatment of church members.  Are they justified?  If so, how?  I am especially interested in hearing from those here who feel negatively towards the church, or who may even agree that members deserve scorn for association with the Church...  Or have felt that way in the past.

What drives this?  Is there a way to counter this?  Should members even try and engage with people like this?  What should be said?

I am open to all thoughts.  

MP

Is this treatment of church members justified?  Absolutely not.

What drives it?  Anger

Should member even try and engage?  No. 

[Foreigner]

21 hours ago, california boy said:

Boy are you clueless. The name of the church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  It is not the Mormon church.  Never has been.  It is a nickname given by others.  It is NOT Mormon's church. He would be embarrassed to have the church referred to even unofficially by his name.

Boy, I am probably much older than you. The official name does not matter much here. The real life does matter. Members of the Church are proud to be Mormons as well as proud of their own religion named after a man. Here is the clue. You probably do not care about the BoM verses quoted above, so we do not have much common to discuss.