What To Do When Your Friend Turns Anti-Mormon?

[GingerRed]

I'd like to thank everyone ( well ALMOST everyone ...lol) for their understanding  and good advice comments so far!    It has helped me a lot    

Edited January 11, 2022 by GingerRed

[Stargazer]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

I don’t think you are accurate in your reasoning from “emergency baptism” based on what has been clarified below.

I wasn't reasoning from "emergency baptism", I was using it as evidence for the fact that the concept of hell-bound unbaptized babies was a real thing, and not just a figment of Joseph Smith's imagination when he wrote the text of Moroni chapter 8 -- which was MisereNobis' claim, though of course he didn't identify Joseph specifically as the author.

The apparent unwillingness to rely upon the hope that God will be merciful to the unbaptized babies that "emergency baptism" represents, reflects a definite worry that God might not, after all, be merciful. The fact that the Christian world was baptizing babies at all says it very clearly -- it was obviously a form of "insurance policy" -- since back in the day, infant mortality rates were high, and who wants babies to go to hell for something they had no control over? Nobody, so there's naturally an attempt to get ahead of the problem, and soften things. I gather that Augustine himself grudgingly conceded that unbaptized babies would be punished less severely.

Yes, he explained that it wasn't official dogma. I accept that. However, the official dogma amounts to "We don't know, but we hope it will be all right for them in the end." And official dogma aside, as I documented, a 15th century conference of church officials restated the premise of unbaptized infants going to hell very emphatically. Again, it wasn't a figment of the author of Moroni 8's imagination, nor did that author originate the claim, which seemed to be MisereNobis' implication.

Something that occurred to me in all this was the interesting idea that Augustine and Mormon (the OP of Moroni 8 in this case) were near-contemporaries, writing at around the same time (though on different continents and unaware of each other), the one declaring unbaptizing babies were going to hell, and the other declaring that the very idea was evil. 

I'm starting to feel like I'm beating a dead horse on this issue, or in other words, I'm repeating myself.

10 hours ago, Calm said:

This seems similar to me to our own temple proxy work where we don’t believe that someone not receiving it at this time will be locked out and yet we go to what others see as extremes in building our temples and going worldwide to collect records and then perform proxy work when we could be investing elsewhere in what others see as more immediate needs because we believe God has commanded us to do so.

There is a hint of similarity there, yes. But it's very vague. They want and hope for mercy for the unbaptized dead who never heard of Jesus, and then  deny that the only scriptural remedy for the problem (1 Cor 15:29) means what it clearly says. And criticize the Latter-day Saints for doing their level best to ensure that those unbaptized dead aren't excluded from salvation because of something they had no control over. 

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

The apparent unwillingness to rely upon the hope that God will be merciful to the unbaptized babies that "emergency baptism" represents, reflects a definite worry that God might not, after all, be merciful.

I don’t see how this is any different from those who would say we do temple work for the dead because we are unwilling to rely on the hope God will be merciful to those who are not baptized.  Can they not say we are worried God won’t be merciful unless we perform the right rituals?  In fact we state that God won’t allow exaltation without baptism, so in that sense the critics are right.

They do baptisms when they can because they are commanded and hope that God will be merciful to the rest.  We do live baptisms of those who choose for themselves and do proxy baptisms of those we can find names for, while realizing we won’t be able to do the vast majority of those who Iived and died without record or whose records were lost to us.  The only difference I can see is we believe that God will eventually provide names so all may be baptized, either themselves or by proxy because all must be participate in the ritual of baptism while they believe God will take care of it himself in some fashion unknown to them for whom he wills.  Unless official Catholic doctrine is God is somehow forced to accept every soul that is baptized properly whether he wills it or not AND that any soul not baptized will perish no matter whether they were decent people or innocent even if God desires to save them, I don’t see how emergency baptisms are a reflection of a belief that God won’t be merciful and more than our commitment to temple proxy work is our belief that God won’t find another way if we turn away in apostasy and refuse to obey his word to baptize all.

If you asked any Saint if they think most of mankind is doomed to eternal death if we stop doing proxy work and no one else took our place, what do you think they would say?  Me, I think God would find a way to ensure the way he had commanded it be done was done.  God’s Wil wil be done no matter what I or anyone else chooses to do. He will find others to do his work if he doesn’t do it himself. I don’t see this as different than Catholics saying God’s will be done by baptizing when they can, but saying the rest are in God’s hands according to his will.  After all, baptism isn’t a get out of hell free card in Catholicism any more than it is in the Restored Church.

And there have been some Saints (I have known some) who since our doctrine is unclear on what a ‘chance’ involves, they believe if missionaries knock on a door and the Spirit tells those who live there to invite them in (and some don’t even require the spirit to be witnessing…somehow the badge and declaration has enough authority to provide anyone with all the necessary chance they need to recognize the gospel for what it is and accept it), but then no invitation is offered.  The story concludes with those who answered the door being killed the next day never having accepted the Gospel when alive, the dead have lost their opportunity for exaltation because that one time of the Spirit telling them to learn of the Gospel was their chance that they rejected…perhaps they might end up in the Terrestrial depending on if they repent or not.  Think I heard that story in Primary as an admonition to the young men there to prepare to be the best ever missionary so no one would be lost to God because they couldn’t convince someone to invite them in.   So again not seeing a difference because some Catholics interpret their doctrine as more rigid than it is because it happens among Saints as well.

There may be Catholics who fill in the gaps of their revealed knowledge and doctrine with fearful beliefs, but plenty of Latter-day Saints do as well in my experience while I don’t see anything that inherently requires them to choose fear over trust in an all merciful God in either faith.

There are LDS parents out there convinced their kid is going to end up in hell and then the Telestial because they walked away from the Church and withdrew their membership or were excommunicated no matter how decent and generous and kind their child is and they are doing all they can trying to convince their child to come back to the faith and be rebaptized, frightened it won’t happen before their child dies an apostate.  There are grandparents who used to baptize their grandchildren against the parents’ wishes and who probably would now if the rules aren’t enforced.

And there are Saints who believe that spirits are in essence in limbo in paradise, they cannot be resurrected or progress until baptism and other temple work is performed for them.  
 

How easy is it to portray that belief as a lack of belief in God’s mercy, that God cares more about ritual and us living by his checklist than the goodness and charity of a spirit?

As a side note, I believe we differ in how we perceive baptism working in humanity, but I am not seeing that as directly tied to why both of us baptize, which is to obey God’s command to be baptized.

Edited January 11, 2022 by Calm

[Teancum]

On 1/9/2022 at 11:50 PM, carbon dioxide said:

What you call an attack is simply explaining the existence of the Church.  Why be a member if it does not matter whether one is or not.  Even in these so called attacks, they are not directed at any specific church or leader.  Plus we believe the apostasy is described in the scriptures would happen and did happen.  There is simply no equivalence to what you posted here and The Kingdom of the Cults by Walter Martin or a dozen other books and sources critical against the Church.  Though you can find a few areas that you can say are an attack, you ignore other examples that show charity towards non-LDS people.  We usually don't see the same charity returned.

• Have the Presbyterians any truth? Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists, etc., any truth? Yes. They all have a little truth mixed with error. We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true "Mormons."  (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith p. 316)

• "We believe in righteousness. We believe in all truth, no matter to what subject it may refer. No sect or religious denomination in the world possesses a single principle of truth that we do not accept or that we will reject. We are willing to receive all truth, from whatever source it may come." (Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine p. 1)

• "We recognize the truth that exists everywhere. That which is true is part of our religion; for it embraces all truth. Our Church is truth's magnet; truth from anywhere and everywhere is attracted by it, comes to it, assimilates with it, has an affinity with it. Truth from every source is recognized by our Church... If Catholicism has any truth that we have not, we will be glad to have it. If Protestantism had any truth that we have not, we welcome it. If Mohammedanism has any truth that we have not yet learned, we will be pleased to get it. If truth should come from any part of the world that we have not yet obtained, we will receive it and rejoice in it." (Charles Penrose in Brain Stuy, Collected Discourses Vol. 5 p. 365)

• "We see the providence of God in all things; we see them in raising up different communities and establishments in the world for the general and universal benefit of mankind. We see the providence of God in raising up a Luther and a John Wesley; we see the providence of God in all the Christian organizations and communities..." (Lorenzo Snow, Journal of Discourses  Vol. 14  p. 301-302)

• All Christian Churches have it, those who seek truth and righteousness. The Baptists, if they are honest, have it; so have the Presbyterians and the Methodists; so also have all Christian and heathen nations. ...We can trace the providence of the Almighty in raising up certain individuals to establish religious organizations, and we see in these things the workings of the Spirit of God for the general interest of the human family. We look upon George Washington, the father of our country, as an inspired instrument of the Almighty; we can see the all-inspiring Spirit operating upon him. ...We can see not only what the Baptists, Methodists, Quakers, Shakers, Presbyterians, and Campbellites see, — the hand of the Lord working with them, but we can see the hand of the Almighty establishing a kingdom spoken of in ages long past by Daniel the Prophet..." (Lorenzo Snow, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 14 p. 304–305)

• "There are some of other faiths who do not regard us as Christians. That is not important. How we regard ourselves is what is important. We acknowledge without hesitation that there are differences between us. Were this not so there would have been no need for a restoration of the gospel....We can respect other religions, and must do so. We must recognize the great good they accomplish. We must teach our children to be tolerant and friendly toward those not of our faith. We can and do work with those of other religions in the defense of those values which have made our civilization great and our society distinctive... But in all of this there is no doctrinal compromise. There need not be and must not be on our part. But there is a degree of fellowship as we labor together." (Gordon B. Hinckley, “We Bear Witness of Him,” Conference Report, April 1988)

 

 

Me thinks you protest too much. Put yourself in the shoes of an Orthodox Christian and then read the premise of the LDS church. You all lost the truth.  You have no authority to administer the saving ordinances.  Your creeds are an abomination and your professors are ally corrupt.  We do not accept your baptism.  Your understanding of the Godhead is false.  We send out 60k missionaries per year to try to convert you to the Only True and Living Church with which God is well pleased.  This is a total affront to what other good Christian believer hold true.  Your attempt to paint this all rosey and kind reflects a whole lot of mental gymnastics ad confirmation bias.

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

This is a total affront to what other good Christian believer hold true.

But they don’t need to be offended because we lump them all together, no favorites nor targets, all treated the same (meaning our faith offers more good than yours does, bring the good you have and we will add to it) and that is all that matters. 😛 

Edited January 11, 2022 by Calm

[Teancum]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

But they don’t need to be offended because we lump them all together, no favorites nor targets, all treated the same (meaning our faith offers more good than yours does, bring the good you have and we will add to it) and that is all that matters. 😛 

So because we think they are all wrong, lack authority, have creeds that are an abomination, etc they should just feel all warm and fuzzy about it?

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Me thinks you protest too much. Put yourself in the shoes of an Orthodox Christian and then read the premise of the LDS church. You all lost the truth.  You have no authority to administer the saving ordinances.  Your creeds are an abomination and your professors are ally corrupt.  We do not accept your baptism.  Your understanding of the Godhead is false.  We send out 60k missionaries per year to try to convert you to the Only True and Living Church with which God is well pleased.  This is a total affront to what other good Christian believer hold true.  Your attempt to paint this all rosey and kind reflects a whole lot of mental gymnastics ad confirmation bias.

AMEN!

[MiserereNobis]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I wasn't reasoning from "emergency baptism", I was using it as evidence for the fact that the concept of hell-bound unbaptized babies was a real thing, and not just a figment of Joseph Smith's imagination when he wrote the text of Moroni chapter 8 -- which was MisereNobis' claim, though of course he didn't identify Joseph specifically as the author.

Just to clarify, it was 3DOP who made that claim, not me. I was just trying to clarify the Catholic position on infant baptism.

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

And official dogma aside, as I documented, a 15th century conference of church officials restated the premise of unbaptized infants going to hell very emphatically.

I did respond to this. The Council of Florence did not emphatically state that unbaptized infants are going to hell.

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Something that occurred to me in all this was the interesting idea that Augustine and Mormon (the OP of Moroni 8 in this case) were near-contemporaries, writing at around the same time (though on different continents and unaware of each other), the one declaring unbaptizing babies were going to hell, and the other declaring that the very idea was evil.

The verse in the Book of Mormon states that the person who believes it is evil, not just that the idea is evil. I think any perusal of St. Augustine's life would show that this is not an evil man, even if one concedes that he believes an evil idea.

[MiserereNobis]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Unless official Catholic doctrine is God is somehow forced to accept every soul that is baptized properly whether he wills it or not AND that any soul not baptized will perish no matter whether they were decent people or innocent even if God desires to save them, I don’t see how emergency baptisms are a reflection of a belief that God won’t be merciful and more than our commitment to temple proxy work is our belief that God won’t find another way if we turn away in apostasy and refuse to obey his word to baptize all.

Well said. I'll add that Catholic doctrine states that humans are bound by the sacraments (we have to perform them) but God is not bound by them.

ETA: here's the exact quote from the catechism:

Quote

God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

 

Edited January 11, 2022 by MiserereNobis

[Mike Drop]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

But they don’t need to be offended because we lump them all together, no favorites nor targets, all treated the same (meaning our faith offers more good than yours does, bring the good you have and we will add to it) and that is all that matters. 😛 

Oh wow!! Basically, you’re saying nah nah a booboo we are better than you? 
 

Question. If we actually believe the Christians are actually Christians, why do we still try to convert them to Mormonism? If they’re our brothers and sisters in Christ, why don’t the missionaries walk away and not try to convert someone once it’s found out they’re Christian? Let me help you with the answer!

”” What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil, by which he deceives the whole world”. Joseph Smith 

 

“” …all the priests who adhere to the sectarian religions of the day with all their followers, with out one exception, receive their portion with the devil and his angels.”” Joseph Smith 

 

Mormonism teaches we are the Christians. This was always taught, well, at least till the internet screwed everything up.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

49 minutes ago, Mike Drop said:

Oh wow!! Basically, you’re saying nah nah a booboo we are better than you? 

We must have read that emoji at the end way differently. I typically use a tongue sticking out emoji to indicate I’m not being serious at all. Tone is hard in online communication, but still. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

We must have read that emoji at the end way differently. I typically use a tongue sticking out emoji to indicate I’m not being serious at all. Tone is hard in online communication, but still. 

Yes, it is the I am being sarcastic emoji for me.  I also use the roll eyes. 

Edited January 11, 2022 by Calm

[Navidad]

Just a quick comment. I think it a bit of a conundrum for LDS posters to go all the way back to the 5th to the 15th century to demonstrate what Catholics teach (taught?), when at the same time what John Taylor, Orson Pratt, and Joseph Smith taught about non-LDS Christians from the 19th century is not be considered relevant today, and may even be a bit of an anachronism, if not an embarrassment.

Also I am wondering about this - my LDS friends pin their faith on the fact that Joseph Smith accurately translated an ancient document - The Book of Mormon. Is there an LDS perspective on whether or not he either might have, did, or could have edited the ancient document in light of more recent events in church history, for example a belief in Limbo instead of Hell when it came to unbaptized infants? In other words, could he have edited a few verses of Moroni 8, knowing that what had once been written was no longer a relevant teaching of the Catholic church, if indeed it ever had been considered doctrine or dogma? Did he translate it exactly as written?

In the same way I continue to read references to things that Walter Martin wrote in the 50s and 60s as if they were written in 2021. Yet things that BH Roberts and Bruce McConkie wrote within decades of each other are now no longer authoritative and a bit of an anachronism. The great Presbyterian pastor Donald Grey Barnhouse, who I remember in our home when I was a boy criticized Martin for his harshness way back in the 50s.

I think these thoughts are relevant to the OP's post given they speak directly to conflicts between LDS and non-LDS Christians over the years. Perhaps if we aren't comfortable with someone at Centerpoint (as a hypothetical) quoting Orson Pratt as representative of current LDS doctrine, we shouldn't be quoting a 15th century Catholic council either or a 1950s and 60s Fundamentalist's writings either! Sure Martin's books are probably still available, but then so are the collections of Pratt, Taylor, and BH Roberts.

[Navidad]

I have to get back to some other things I am working on, but I thought I would share these two perspectives on the issue of LDS and non-LDS Christians working at "converting" each other. I put converting in quotation marks because I don't believe that movement of folks between Christian faiths is any kind of a "conversion." 

Wilford Woodruff, one of my favorites of the early LDS church presidents and a member of Zion's Camp, wrote the following in an August 1895 edition of The Contributor:

 

“When you go into a neighborhood to preach the Gospel, never attempt to tear down a man's house, so to speak, before you build him a better one; never, in fact, attack any one's religion, wherever you go. Be willing to let every man enjoy his own religion. It is his right to do that. If he does not accept your testimony with regard to the Gospel of Christ, that is his affair, and not yours. Do not spend your time in pulling down other sects and parties. We haven't time to do that. It is never right to do that.”

 From a Wikipedia site:

 

"Many other Christian churches also seek to teach or convert Mormons when the opportunity arises. Some Evangelical Christian leaders often encourage their followers to follow the admonition of Paul ^[137] and witness to others using gentleness and respect. Like their Mormon counterparts, those from the Evangelical Christian religions assert that these proselytizing efforts arise out of love and genuine concern for others and not a desire to cause contention. Consequently, though the feelings may be strong, there is often a feeling of mutual appreciation and respect that accompanies missionary efforts on both sides (though this is not always the case)."   

You can click on the link to read all the interesting content about relationships over the years. I don't know who wrote this Wikipedia article, but it seems basically to be on target.

Indeed this practice of proselytizing each other is tricky business. Navidad's strong preference is not to engage in any of it from either side!

 

[HappyJackWagon]

On 1/9/2022 at 10:59 AM, GingerRed said:

I know I must sound like I'm coming across mean and harsh at the moment...    My apologies .....It's just I'm so hurt and her and I used to go to the temple together and watch Gen Conference together  ..all the plans we had for the future involving church stuff, reading scriptures together etc.  That's all been taken away.   Her joining another church doesn't bother me nearly as much as her doing a 360 degree turn around.  I can accept her decision to go elsewhere. But she does not have the right to get in our face and tell us our church is bad. I would have NEVER done that to her new religion! She's becoming a person I don't recognize.  Until I can process all this I still want to distance myself from her for now.  I need to get to a point I won't lash out back at HER.  I don't want to do that.

bsjkki  ... I like your idea about setting boundaries.  Hopefully I can get to that point with her if she can be cooperative.  Right now I think she's lashing out at everything, even pushing away her friends  she is not caring at the moment if she's offended her friends beliefs.. 

This isn't about you.

Think about how hurt and betrayed she likely feels. It sounds like she may be in the anger stage of loss. Instead of being offended by it may you could try understanding why she feels so hurt.

But you're right that your first post came across very harsh and judgmental, calling her a liar because she should know better. Perhaps she feels like members of the church are the liars because they should know better. Maybe the recognition of false church history has caused her to be angry and mistrusting. Dropping a friend because they believe differently than you is pretty harsh. At the same time, if you guys no longer have anything in common, maybe it's best for everyone to just move on.

[Ipod Touch]

On 1/9/2022 at 7:23 AM, GingerRed said:

However...3 days ago she posted on her Facebook page her "announcement" to declare to all that she left our church, to become....a Christian! BECOME a Christian?? Since when was she NOT one? She went on to spout the usual anti Mormon propaganda we've all heard before.... we worship Joseph Smith over Jesus....heck we even sing about Joseph more than Jesus! The bible is the only true scripture...yadda yadda.  Excuse me???

A few thoughts:

* It sounds like your friend has been taken in by radical evangelicals.  Happened to a friend of mine in high school.  She was going to be baptized and the night before her evangelical "friends" took her to a cabin and kept her up all night trying to convince her not to become Mormon.

* Any person who recites the tired anti-mormon tropes does not deserve to be taken seriously.  You are absolutely correct that she knows it is a lie.  But when you get dragged into radical cults, your perception of truth and error is highly skewed

* Hopefully this fever will burn itself out. She'll get up one day, put on her shoes and realize that life as a newborn "Christian" is just like it was as a vile Mormon.  I don't think she is worth your time now, but she'll probably be looking for a safe landing spot when her current fanaticism causes a crash

Edited January 11, 2022 by Ipod Touch

[carbon dioxide]

9 hours ago, Teancum said:

Me thinks you protest too much. Put yourself in the shoes of an Orthodox Christian and then read the premise of the LDS church. You all lost the truth.  You have no authority to administer the saving ordinances.  Your creeds are an abomination and your professors are ally corrupt.  We do not accept your baptism.  Your understanding of the Godhead is false.  We send out 60k missionaries per year to try to convert you to the Only True and Living Church with which God is well pleased.  This is a total affront to what other good Christian believer hold true.  Your attempt to paint this all rosey and kind reflects a whole lot of mental gymnastics ad confirmation bias.

Apples and oranges .  Yes we do teach these was an apostasy and all that.  Ignoring that does not explain why the church exists.  However we do not focus any significant time one teaching members why other churches are wrong.  We don’t target pastors or preachers and all the mistakes they have made.  We do not produce and distribute material attacking any church.  We do not protest any churches.  
 

The whole premise of preaching the gospel is proclaiming things to people that they do not know.  It may involve telling people there current views are not correct.  Telling a person they have to believe in Jesus to be saved is my be called an “attack” against billions of people living today.  So if you want to say the the church does “attack” other churches in your statement fine but there is vast scale of difference between what you posted and the attacks against us.  If you can’t recognize the difference,  you see everything to be the same.  A man throwing rock in this neighbors window is the same as him burning his neighbors house down.

[Ipod Touch]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Dropping a friend because they believe differently than you is pretty harsh.

Dropping your friend for blatantly lying about your faith isn't harsh at all.

Pretty disingenuous to characterize as a matter of simply "[believing] differently."

Ex- and marginal-Mormons have this weird sense of entitlement where they get to be jerks whenever and wherever they like, but believing Latter-day Saints are expected to be on their best behavior at all times.  Yes, charity and empathy are important.  But many exmos they get a free pass because of the trauma caused by the Gospel Principles manual resulting in the need to "recover from Mormonism."

 

Edited January 11, 2022 by Ipod Touch
language

[HappyJackWagon]

17 hours ago, Ipod Touch said:

A few thoughts:

* It sounds like your friend has been taken in by radical evangelicals.  Happened to a friend of mine in high school.  She was going to be baptized and the night before her evangelical "friends" took her to a cabin and kept her up all night trying to convince her not to become Mormon.

* Any person who recites the tired anti-mormon tropes does not deserve to be taken seriously.  You are absolutely correct that she knows it is a lie.  But when you get dragged into radical cults, your perception of truth and error is highly skewed

* Hopefully this fever will burn itself out. She'll get up one day, put on her shoes and realize that life as a newborn "Christian" is just like it was as a vile Mormon.  I don't think she is worth your time now, but she'll probably be looking for a safe landing spot when her current fanaticism wears off

I couldn't help but laugh at your description of radical evangelical cults leading people away from what those evangelicals would likely consider a radical mormon cult  

Misguided or not it sounds like her friends were watching out for her. 

I'll also point out that some of the "anti-mormon" information about things like Joseph's polygamy/polyandry, Word of Wisdom issues, and translation processes ended up being true. It sounds like you're are buying into the tropes about anti-mormons.

But regardless, claiming someone you don't know is obviously lying and not worth the time of another person you don't know is pretty callous and judgmental. Well-done. You're validating some mormon tropes.

Edited January 12, 2022 by HappyJackWagon

[Ipod Touch]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Misguided or not it sounds like her friends were watching out for her. 

The use of brainwashing techniques to prevent another person from exercising personal autonomy is not simply misguided.

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'll also point out that some of the "anti-mormon" information about things like Joseph's polygamy/polyandry, Word of Wisdom issues, and translation processes ended up being true. It sounds like you're are buying into the tropes about anti-mormons.

Not really.  I'm an exmo myself.  But anyone who boils down Nauvoo polygamy to "Joseph was a womanizer" is not interested in a good faith sharing of ideas.

[Ipod Touch]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But regardless, claiming someone you don't know is obviously lying and not worth the time of another person you don't know is pretty callous and judgmental. Well-done. You're validating some mormon tropes.

Dang. As an exmo, I'm not sure how I feel about that.

[CA Steve]

3 minutes ago, Ipod Touch said:

Not really.  I'm an exmo myself.  But anyone who boils down Nauvoo polygamy to "Joseph was a womanizer" is not interested in a good faith sharing of ideas.

Anyone who boils down ex-Mormons and marginal Mormons to:

Quote

have[ing] this weird sense of entitlement where they get to be jerks whenever and wherever they like

is not interested in a good faith sharing of ideas either.

[Ipod Touch]

3 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

is not interested in a good faith sharing of ideas either.

Show me the lie.

How often are good and honorable posters like @mfbukowski and @Scott Lloydaccused of being too rough around the edges? 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This isn't about you.

This is about her as well as her friend, the relationship is both of them. Both need to adjust for it to work again, not just one.  

[Ipod Touch]

46 minutes ago, Calm said:

This is about her as well as her friend, the relationship is both of them. Both need to adjust for it to work again, not just one.

I think this is a good example of the sentiment that believing Mormons must do, as the kids say, the "emotional labor" for those who chose to leave.  I don't think that is fair to ask.

You are exactly right that this is a two way street. 👍

Edited January 12, 2022 by Ipod Touch