Op-Ed: Perspective: What’s behind American media’s unhealthy fixation on ‘Mormons, Inc.’?

[Smiley McGee]

On 5/16/2023 at 1:17 PM, Analytics said:

If we are going to compare the government to the church, then let's do it. 

Imagine the government doing what the church does: year after year, decade after decade, it spends only about 90% of the tax revenue it brings in. The balance goes into a rainy day fund. It never taps into the rainy day fund. Not for the Great Recession. Not for the COVID-19 shutdown. Nothing. Never. Nada. The government's rainy day fund grows to the point where its interest income is enough to fully fund the government without taxes. But it doesn't lower taxes. At all. And it doesn't increase government services. It continues to reinvest all of the investment income, and continues to live on 90% of the tax revenue. 

Would you laud the government for doing that? 

Will add for @smac97: Unless the church can print its own sovereign currency and make it legal tender for the payment of taxes you can’t make the comparison. A sovereign govt with its own sovereign currency is without comparison. It does not need to save money that it creates. Decrease in public sector liabilities is a decrease in private sector assets. Your comparison does not comprehend the mechanics of a sovereign fiat currency. 

Edited May 18, 2023 by Smiley McGee

[Analytics]

49 minutes ago, Smiley McGee said:

Will add for @smac97: Unless the church can print its own sovereign currency and make it legal tender for the payment of taxes you can’t make the comparison. A sovereign govt with its own sovereign currency is without comparison. It does not need to save money that it creates. Decrease in public sector liabilities is a decrease in private sector assets. Your comparison does not comprehend the mechanics of a sovereign fiat currency. 

Here is my point. It is an inefficient use of resources for churches and nonprofits to save too much. Yes, best practices stipulate say such organizations should have some reserves saved "for a rainy day." But best practices also recognize that it is raining right now. Hard. The challenge is finding the correct balance between current needs and future needs.

Best practices are to decide a specific, finite amount that needs to be saved, and adjust spending on a year by year basis to continuously approach that amount. That amount is typically on the order of 6 months to 2 years of expenses. If you have less than that you need to save more. If you have more than that you need to spend it down. If you get an MBA in nonprofit management, that is what you'll learn.

The Church does not do that. The Church adds to its savings every single year, and has been doing so for decades. When compared to anything that would be considered best practices in relationship to its income and expenses, the savings are obscenely excessive.

Just as we shouldn't tolerate a government that taxes more than it needs in order to accumulate excessive government savings, people shouldn't donate to churches and charities that have excessive savings.

[Smiley McGee]

9 hours ago, Analytics said:

Here is my point. It is an inefficient use of resources for churches and nonprofits to save too much. Yes, best practices stipulate say such organizations should have some reserves saved "for a rainy day." But best practices also recognize that it is raining right now. Hard. The challenge is finding the correct balance between current needs and future needs.

Best practices are to decide a specific, finite amount that needs to be saved, and adjust spending on a year by year basis to continuously approach that amount. That amount is typically on the order of 6 months to 2 years of expenses. If you have less than that you need to save more. If you have more than that you need to spend it down. If you get an MBA in nonprofit management, that is what you'll learn.

The Church does not do that. The Church adds to its savings every single year, and has been doing so for decades. When compared to anything that would be considered best practices in relationship to its income and expenses, the savings are obscenely excessive.

Just as we shouldn't tolerate a government that taxes more than it needs in order to accumulate excessive government savings, people shouldn't donate to churches and charities that have excessive savings.

So I agree with you, really I just responded to your comment when I should have responded to another. My point is only tangential to the thread but similar to other posters, it’s a pet peeve of mine when the conservative current in the church opines on monetary economics like their about to sell someone gold or silver coins in prep for some imminent collapse of the dollar. 

[Teancum]

On 5/17/2023 at 11:04 AM, Okrahomer said:

You have surprised me here.  I had assumed that you had already exited the Church.  I enjoy the counter-balance you provide in these discussions; although I don't often agree with you.  Even so, I think your voice/perspective is important and valid.  I hope the fact that you have not resigned your membership means you are still trying to find your way back to faith and belief.  The Church is better with you in it. 

Really I spoke out of anger. I let @smac97 rather personal comments about me to be mean spirited.  And I was surprised because he  usually avoids such things. Believe it or not I do value my church membership.  I was born into the church.  My family and many sides goes back to the beginning.  I am fifth generation.  So much of who and what I am, both good and bad, is because of the LDS Church, its teachings/doctrines and culture.  So yea I am reluctant to do this.  Though my wife, who was baptized at 22 seems like she wants to and I think she would like it if we did it together.  But I have told her it is a personal thing and if that is her choice I will support her but she cannot make that choice hinge on me.

Edited May 18, 2023 by Teancum

[Tacenda]

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Really I spike out of anger.  Believe it or not I do value my church membership.  I was born into the church.  My family and many sides goes back to the beginning.  I am fifth generation.  So much of who and what I am, both good and bad, is because of the LDS Church, its teachings/doctrines and culture.  So yea I am reluctant to do this.  Though my wife, who was baptized at 22 seems like she wants to and I think she would like it if we did it together.  But I have told her it is a personal thing and if that is her choice I will support her but she cannot make that choice hinge on me.

You and me both! My ancestor is the family that the mother gave up on the trek to Utah and wouldn't budge and then her daughters found a freshly baked pie in the road, shown in the movie, "17 Miracles". I kind of am skeptical about it being purely true, the pie in the road. 

Edited May 18, 2023 by Tacenda

[Okrahomer]

19 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Believe it or not I do value my church membership.  I was born into the church.

This makes sense.  I hope, somewhere in the journey, something happens for you and your wife that could possibly rekindle the faith and belief.  In the meantime, I am happy to call you “brother.”

[smac97]

44 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Really I spike out of anger. I let @smac97 rather personal comments about me to be mean spirited. 

Well, I will give your comments some consideration.  I was critiquing and criticizing your vitriolic comments about our faith.  Your repeated suggestions to the contrary, I really am saddened that you are so angry at the Church.  At the same time, though, I think much of what you have to say is bullying.  Your persistent use of insults, ridicule, scorn, etc., do not persuade.  These are the tools used to shame and humiliate.  To . . . bully.

I seek to defend what you attack.  I seek to rationally explain and contextualize what you scorn and ridicule.  I seek to honor what you defame and slander and profane.  I do not know what your beliefs are, but I don't think I have disparaged or insulted or ridiculed them.

Standing up to bullies is hard.  Hard, that is, for the bully.  They are not accustomed to it.  Frankly, I think many of them do not consider their behavior to be "bullying."  Alternatively, they inwardly realize what they are doing, are ashamed thereby, but then seek to rationalize it for a variety of reasons (such as having a desire to continue it).

Does any or all of this apply to me?  I dunno.  I don't think so, but I'll think on it.  Again, I am pretty much always on the defense here.  I do not insult, demean, or ridicule other faiths.  I rarely criticize other faiths, and when I do, it is not on the "imponderables."

44 minutes ago, Teancum said:

And I was surprised because he  usually avoids such things. Believe it or not I do value my church membership.  I was born into the church.  My family and many sides goes back to the beginning.  I am fifth generation.  So much of who and what I am, both good and bad, is because of the LDS Church, its teachings/doctrines and culture.  So yea I am reluctant to do this.  Though my wife, who was baptized at 22 seems like she wants to and I think she would like it if we did it together.  But I have told her it is a personal thing and if that is her choice I will support her but she cannot make that choice hinge on me.

I don't want you to leave the Church any more than you already have.  

But I also don't want to leave unanswered your published-to-the-world calumnies against our faith.  As Austin Farrer put it: "What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.”

So I can't abstain from defending what you are attacking, but perhaps I can improve how I go about doing it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Well, I will give your comments some consideration.  I was critiquing and criticizing your vitriolic comments about our faith.  Your repeated suggestions to the contrary, I really am saddened that you are so angry at the Church.  At the same time, though, I think much of what you have to say is bullying.  Your persistent use of insults, ridicule, scorn, etc., do not persuade.  These are the tools used to shame and humiliate.  To . . . bully.

I seek to defend what you attack.  I seek to rationally explain and contextualize what you scorn and ridicule.  I seek to honor what you defame and slander and profane.  I do not know what your beliefs are, but I don't think I have disparaged or insulted or ridiculed them.

Standing up to bullies is hard.  Hard, that is, for the bully.  They are not accustomed to it.  Frankly, I think many of them do not consider their behavior to be "bullying."  Alternatively, they inwardly realize what they are doing, are ashamed thereby, but then seek to rationalize it for a variety of reasons (such as having a desire to continue it).

Does any or all of this apply to me?  I dunno.  I don't think so, but I'll think on it.  Again, I am pretty much always on the defense here.  I do not insult, demean, or ridicule other faiths.  I rarely criticize other faiths, and when I do, it is not on the "imponderables."

Well thanks for repeating your entire personal attack.  I am hardly a bully.  And as you use that term you might want to do some personal reflection it yourself. Because what you are doing in bullying.  And shaming.   And I am not buying into it nor do I see a need to back down. Yes at times I can be to strong in some of my comments.  But I don't attack you personally. If I do call me out. I criticized the church.  Your church. And still still mine. MY CHURCH.  After all the time, money, resources, attention, emtitios, and so on that I gave it for most of my life I have a right to criticize if. It is not above criticism.  It is not beyond reproach.  You and other active members don't get to set the agenda nor how anyone deals with their faith transition nor how they exit. Active Latter day Saint want to do this.  And they whine about it on a regular basis.  And really I am not angry much anymore.  This is the place I vent.  I hardly talk about such things outside of the forum to active believing members. And stop trying to armchair psychoanalyze me. I am not ashamed at all about the criticisms I make about the church.  I think most are deserved. If you are to thin skinned to handle it I guess that is your problem.  So how how about I psychoanalyze  you?  I think your excessive need to defend your faith reveal a deep insecurity about it in your mind. I think many hobby apologist do so because of such insecurities. And I will confess that was partly my motivation, at times, when was a defender, And other former defenders not disaffected.  So I could be reading my on experience onto you.   

o go ahead and think on it.  Think on your ad hominem attack. Think on your own possible insecurities and your own bullying tendencies.  Have a nice day.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Your persistent use of insults, ridicule, scorn, etc., do not persuade.  These are the tools used to shame and humiliate.  To . . . bully.

I seek to defend what you attack.  I seek to rationally explain and contextualize what you scorn and ridicule.  I seek to honor what you defame and slander and profane.  I do not know what your beliefs are, but I don't think I have disparaged or insulted or ridiculed them.

By the way what you term is slander, scorn and ridicule is simply valid criticisms.  And I seek to explain why such criticisms are valid. Again the church is not above criticism nor reproach. If you open a topic to cry about it when others oppose your position on a discussion board.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Well thanks for repeating your entire personal attack.  I am hardly a bully.  And as you use that term you might want to do some personal reflection it yourself.

I will.

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Because what you are doing in bullying.  And shaming.   And I am not buying into it nor do I see a need to back down.

I don't mind reasoned and evidence-based (and basically respectful/civil) disagreement / debate / criticism.  Much of what you say here is . . . not that.

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Yes at times I can be to strong in some of my comments.  But I don't attack you personally.

My protestations pertain to your vitriol against the Church.

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

If I do call me out. I criticized the church.  Your church. And still still mine. MY CHURCH. 

• "As your Church has demonstrated."
• "Like I said your church could easily clear all this up by being open and transparent about their finances."
• "Your church could clear this all up if they were open with their finances as well as transparent."
• "Your church has wonderful advantages when it comes to finances under US tax law."

Some mixed messaging here.

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

After all the time, money, resources, attention, emtitios, and so on that I gave it for most of my life I have a right to criticize if.

I have a friend who feels this way about his wife, with whom he has had a strained relationship for quite a while.  He has spent a lot of time in their marriage, so he feels at liberty to occasionally post stuff on FB and elsewhere in which he points out her flaws, describes her weaknesses and errors, critique her competency as a wife and mother, etc.

He has a right to do these things.  Free Speech and all that.  

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It is not above criticism. It is not beyond reproach. 

I haven't said otherwise.

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

You and other active members don't get to set the agenda nor how anyone deals with their faith transition nor how they exit.

I don't dispute that, either.  But I will speak in defense of our faith against your various calumnies.

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Active Latter day Saint want to do this.  And they whine about it on a regular basis. 

I am fine with reasoned, evidence-based criticism and discussion.  

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

And really I am not angry much anymore.  This is the place I vent.

Clearly.  And like my friend noted above, you have that right.  I really question the utility of it (for his sake, for his wife's, for his child's, for his extended circle of family/friends/acquaintances, etc.), but I don't dispute your right to do it.

And this is where I come to listen to people, including faithful members, disaffected members (like you), critics and antagonists (again, like you), and to defend our faith, particularly from vituperative "vent{ings}" such as yours.

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I hardly talk about such things outside of the forum to active believing members.

Confining your "vent{ing}" disparagements to this board is better than doing otherwise.

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

And stop trying to armchair psychoanalyze me. I am not ashamed at all about the criticisms I make about the church.  I think most are deserved. If you are to thin skinned to handle it I guess that is your problem.  So how how about I psychoanalyze  you?  I think your excessive need to defend your faith reveal a deep insecurity about it in your mind.

Right.  So insecure that I have been defending it on this board since 2004.

I wrote this back in 2017, and it still holds today:

Quote

1. I have been on this board since 2004, and I was on ZLMB before that.  I remember ZLMB's decline and fall.  It was a sad thing.

2. In my view, this board has become significantly less interesting over the past while.  Here are perhaps some of the contributing factors:

Repetition: Having spent nearly 20 years participating in online adversarial discussions about the LDS Church and its doctrines, practices, leaders, members, culture, etc., I think I've reached a point where many (most?   nearly all?) of the threads here are duplicative of substantive discussions we've had before.  Re-hashing the same topics over and over and over becomes tiresome and boring and not worthwhile.

Marshaled Evidence/Explanations: We now have extensive, readily-accessible resources which provide rich and substantive information about the LDS Church and its history, doctrines, etc.  LDS.org.  FAIRMormon (particularly its "Answers" and "Wiki" sections, and its YouTube channel).  BYU's publications (such as the content on the Maxwell Institute website, the online Encyclopedia of Mormonism, and so on).  Individual LDS websites (Jeff Lindsay's and Dan Peterson's are some of my favorites).  The Interpreter Foundation's website.  And many, many, other online and printed resources (see here for a partial listing).  These resources provide a much better structured, and more coherent and comprehensive, presentation of LDS doctrine and belief then the disjointed, piecemeal, stream-of-consciousness, let's-throw-this-topic-at-the-wall-and-see-if-it-sticks approach to the LDS Church which arises naturally from user-selected topics on an LDS-themed message board.  Compared to these other sources of information, participating on a discussion board - particularly one that is apparently in the same downward spiral as we saw with ZLMB - becomes less worthwhile.  That is not to say that we should ignore or gloss over reasoned criticisms of our faith.  My point is that sources like FAIR and Jeff Lindsay and Dan Peterson and many others have done quite a good job of presenting criticisms of the LDS Church and then martialing evidence and explanations in response thereto.  Those resources are, at this point, simply more attractive than this board.

Asked and Answered: Back in 1997, Carl Mosser and Paul Owen said this:

Quote

Mormon scholars and apologists (not all apologists are scholars) have, with varying degrees of success, answered most of the usual evangelical criticisms. Often these answers adequately diffuse particular (minor) criticisms. When the criticism has not been diffused the issue has usually been made much more complex.

I think this was true in 1997, and far more so now, 20 years later.  And yet Latter-day Saints still endlessly respond to the these "usual evangelical criticisms" (and secular ones as well).  This gets boring.  Exasperating.  Not worthwhile.  

Critics Getting Nasty/Personal/Profane: I feel there is a marked deterioration on this board in the quality of critical arguments against the LDS Church.  There are some attempts to present dispassionate, reasoned criticisms of the LDS Church and its doctrines and practices and such, and I appreciate those.  But these have become more of the exception than the rule.  These days, the criticisms seem to be predominantly mean-spirited, calculated to offend/enflame, profane, taunting, sarcastic, and so on.  This becomes all the more problematic when we consider that this board was created for Mormons (mostly).  And yet when critics are invited to participate, many of their remarks have become markedly, demonstrably, intentionally offensive and derogatory about many topics which Mormons hold near and dear to their hearts.  Topics which are sacred to the Mormons.  Topics which are treated with casual contempt and ridicule by many of the guests of this board.  If I were participating in an online forum where other participants routinely and openly insulted and denigrated my wife, I would not stay there.  I would leave not because their insults and denigrating remarks are valid, but because I see no value in attempting to interact with persons who could be so incredibly boorish and crass and vulgar as to say such things to my face about a person so important to me.

Entitled Critics (Who Are Members): I think there is a crop of participants here who claim to be members of the LDS Church, and yet also routinely and publicly denigrate and insult and ridicule the LDS Church, its doctrines, practices, leaders, etc.  They appear to feel entitled to say such appalling things about our shared faith because they are nominally members of the Church.  I can see the theoretical value of this board for, say, a church member who is struggling to build or maintain a testimony of the Restored Gospel, or who is seeking to better understand a difficult and thorny topic like the Priesthood Ban or polygamy or Mountain Meadows.  But the crop of participants I have in mind do not fit that description.  Instead, they seem to revel in being a member and yet coming here and - behind the safety of an online pseudonym - publicly denigrating the Church, slandering the leaders of the Church, ridiculing sacred things, taunting fellow members of the Church, and otherwise seeking undermine and tear down the LDS Church.  This is not "constructive criticism."  This is not "loyal opposition."  This is, to me, something approaching apostasy.  There is only such much of such behavior with which I am willing to put up.  Non-member critics span the spectrum of civility, and there are a number who are quite civil and polite in their disagreements with us.  More to the point, these non-member critics are not bound by covenants as members are.  So I guess I'm saying I have substantially less patience for critics who are members of the Church than critics who are not.

The narrative against faithful Latter-day Saints is that we are either ignorant dupes, or intellectual/moral cowards who stay in the Church out of social pressures/expectations, or tribalistic-minded automatons, or conniving/Machiavellian hucksters who are in the con, or some combination of these.

And yet there are a good number of well-educated and well-informed and experienced Latter-day Saints who, having heard the various arguments and critiques of the Restored Gospel (and the Church that houses it), find them wanting, and also find the substance of the Gospel to be what it claims to be, and the Church what it claims to be.

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I think many hobby apologist do so because of such insecurities. And I will confess that was partly my motivation, at times, when was a defender, And other former defenders not disaffected.  So I could be reading my on experience onto you.

Yes, you could.

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

o go ahead and think on it.  Think on your ad hominem attack. Think on your own possible insecurities and your own bullying tendencies.  Have a nice day.

Okay.

I am coming up on 16,000 posts on this board.  I think if my faith was as fragile and rooted in insecurity as you suggest, I would have been shaken from it by now.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

By the way what you term is slander, scorn and ridicule is simply valid criticisms. And I seek to explain why such criticisms are valid.

Conclusory deprecations are not valid criticisms.  

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Again the church is not above criticism nor reproach.

I have not suggested otherwise.  I have, instead, repeatedly acknowledged this.

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

If you open a topic to cry about it when others oppose your position on a discussion board.

Taunts are not valid criticisms, either.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MrShorty]

To take the Ecclesiast out of context, "Let us hear the end of the whole matter:"

17 hours ago, Analytics said:

It is an inefficient use of resources for churches and nonprofits to save too much. Yes, best practices stipulate say such organizations should have some reserves saved "for a rainy day." But best practices also recognize that it is raining right now. Hard. The challenge is finding the correct balance between current needs and future needs.

The DN op-ed mentions that there could be value in discussing this balance: "It’s certainly fair to consider where best an organization should dedicate resources. And it’s fair to debate how large of a cash reserve any organization should maintain." However, Hess and Boyd seem content to assume that the church's balance is about right, while many church members (not to mention church critics) are not content to assume the church has found a good balance.

This professor and IRS person (was his name Phil?) they brought in said that he would hope that a church would be using at least 2-3% of its assets (not specifying whether this is liquid assets or total assets) to do its work -- though he admitted that for churches this is not enforceable, but on an honor system. I'm okay with that -- I'm not comfortable with the state being the one to dictate to churches what they do with their resources. 2-3% seems low, but we seem to currently well within that ballpark. $10B out of $100B is 10%, $5B out of $150B is 3%. @Analytics claims of 2 year's budget in the cash reserve works out to more like 33% or 50% (did I do that right?). Somewhere today I saw something that said that charity watchdog raters will start to downgrade a charity if there is too much in a cash reserve.

I was disappointed in Bishop Waddell's explanations, and I was disappointed that the DN op-ed just glossed over the topic. I'm glad that the church is concerned about the future and its future ability to do its work. I wish the church was more willing to help us all understand exactly what it means to ensure its future ability to do its work while sacrificing its ability to do more good in the now.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Again, I am pretty much always on the defense here.  I do not insult, demean, or ridicule other faiths.

But when it comes to repeating easily disprovable slander calling your enemies pedophiles, all in a days work defending God’s kingdom. 
 

And just for the record, for many of us here, the Church is the bully. 

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

But when it comes to repeating easily disprovable slander calling your enemies pedophiles, all in a days work defending God’s kingdom. 

I recall retracting and apologizing for that error.  Repeatedly, even.

11 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And just for the record, for many of us here, the Church is the bully. 

Right.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

17 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

But when it comes to repeating easily disprovable slander calling your enemies pedophiles, all in a days work defending God’s kingdom. 
 

And just for the record, for many of us here, the Church is the bully. 

I have to admit, sometimes it is. And a switcheroo here.... the members or non members being true, not the church always. Since the members/non members are sometimes the ones ahead of the church and the moral compass guiding it, it seems.

Edited May 18, 2023 by Tacenda

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I will.

OK.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I don't mind reasoned and evidence-based (and basically respectful/civil) disagreement / debate / criticism.  Much of what you say here is . . . not that.

In your opinion.  I disagree.  And you not only periodically toss in personal attacks at me but you do on others as well. And you are demeaning.  Like I said. some self introspection may be good for you as well. You are not as reasoned an innocent as you think.  I will so the same.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

My protestations pertain to your vitriol against the Church.

 

See this is what you do. And pretty much anything anyone says that is critical of the church you term as vitriol or calumny. 

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

• "As your Church has demonstrated."
• "Like I said your church could easily clear all this up by being open and transparent about their finances."
• "Your church could clear this all up if they were open with their finances as well as transparent."
• "Your church has wonderful advantages when it comes to finances under US tax law."

Some mixed messaging here.

Using YOUR when referring to these things does not mean it is not mine. It is simply rhetoric.  By the way what was the vitriol in the above comments?  They are simple statements of fact and opinion. 

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I have a friend who feels this way about his wife, with whom he has had a strained relationship for quite a while.  He has spent a lot of time in their marriage, so he feels at liberty to occasionally post stuff on FB and elsewhere in which he points out her flaws, describes her weaknesses and errors, critique her competency as a wife and mother, etc.

He has a right to do these things.  Free Speech and all that.  

I haven't said otherwise.

I don't dispute that, either.  But I will speak in defense of our faith against your various calumnies.

calumny: the making of false and defamatory statements about someone in order to damage their reputation; slander.

You may view some or many of my comments as such. I don't.  Nor do other critics. So your use if this work is simply an your opinion.  And you use it in an over the top hyperbolic way.  So defend away.  That is the purpose of this board to some extent.  But don't call people names not do ad hominem attacks. Which you are still doing, Deal with the criticism.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I am fine with reasoned, evidence-based criticism and discussion.  

Are you? I wonder. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Clearly.  And like my friend noted above, you have that right.  I really question the utility of it (for his sake, for his wife's, for his child's, for his extended circle of family/friends/acquaintances, etc.), but I don't dispute your right to do it.

It seems you do.  You excoriated me.  You claim my sole intent is to attack your beliefs while pounding your chest on how you never do such a thing. 

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

And this is where I come to listen to people, including faithful members, disaffected members (like you), critics and antagonists (again, like you), and to defend our faith, particularly from vituperative "vent{ings}" such as yours.

Then why are you complaining about my "vituperative" comments or ventings.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Confining your "vent{ing}" disparagements to this board is better than doing otherwise.

Well wow golly gee, I actually got a back handed compliment from you.🙄

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Right.  So insecure that I have been defending it on this board since 2004.

So?  I defended the faith on ZLMB initially from its opening when myself, Dan Paterson and a bunch of others gor the boot from the UTLM message board. I was part of a cadre of apologists on an email list that included Peterson, Kerry Shirty, Darryl Barksdale, Mike Parker, John Tvedtness and so on. I attended the first FAIR conference. I spoke at the second one.  I was a defender for years on the Mormon Discussion Board as well as here.  For 15 years I spent a lot of time on apologetics. ANd then I couldn't.  So be careful.  But hey I said that I could be  reading my own experience on you. And I was letting you know how it is not fun to be analyzed by someone who really does not know you.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I wrote this back in 2017, and it still holds today:

The narrative against faithful Latter-day Saints is that we are either ignorant dupes, or intellectual/moral cowards who stay in the Church out of social pressures/expectations, or tribalistic-minded automatons, or conniving/Machiavellian hucksters who are in the con, or some combination of these.

Yea But I never have made this argument. How may others do I do not know. It seems to me a caricature that once again plays well to the persecution process.  Jeck I was as faithful as they come for 52 years.  Had you told me 15 years ago I would end up where in am in regards to my faith I would have thought you were crazy as ever.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

And yet there are a good number of well-educated and well-informed and experienced Latter-day Saints who, having heard the various arguments and critiques of the Restored Gospel (and the Church that houses it), find them wanting, and also find the substance of the Gospel to be what it claims to be, and the Church what it claims to be.

Yes.  So?  THere are well educated and well informed experienced believers in other faiths that fins substance in what their religion claims as well. That does not make it correct.  But I get it.  The comment above I think applied to me for a long time and was also a compelling reason for me to hold on longer than I did.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

I am coming up on 16,000 posts on this board.  I think if my faith was as fragile and rooted in insecurity as you suggest, I would have been shaken from it by now.

Thanks,

-Smac

Maybe.  Maybe not.Like I sad I had tens of thousands of posts on this and other boards defending like you do. And here I am. And there you are.  What is the difference I wonder.

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Conclusory deprecations are not valid criticisms.  

I guess the reader can decide whether my comments are simply that or not.

[jkwilliams]

54 minutes ago, Teancum said:

OK.

In your opinion.  I disagree.  And you not only periodically toss in personal attacks at me but you do on others as well. And you are demeaning.  Like I said. some self introspection may be good for you as well. You are not as reasoned an innocent as you think.  I will so the same.

 

See this is what you do. And pretty much anything anyone says that is critical of the church you term as vitriol or calumny. 

 

Using YOUR when referring to these things does not mean it is not mine. It is simply rhetoric.  By the way what was the vitriol in the above comments?  They are simple statements of fact and opinion. 

 

calumny: the making of false and defamatory statements about someone in order to damage their reputation; slander.

You may view some or many of my comments as such. I don't.  Nor do other critics. So your use if this work is simply an your opinion.  And you use it in an over the top hyperbolic way.  So defend away.  That is the purpose of this board to some extent.  But don't call people names not do ad hominem attacks. Which you are still doing, Deal with the criticism.

 

Are you? I wonder. 

It seems you do.  You excoriated me.  You claim my sole intent is to attack your beliefs while pounding your chest on how you never do such a thing. 

 

Then why are you complaining about my "vituperative" comments or ventings.

 

Well wow golly gee, I actually got a back handed compliment from you.🙄

 

So?  I defended the faith on ZLMB initially from its opening when myself, Dan Paterson and a bunch of others gor the boot from the UTLM message board. I was part of a cadre of apologists on an email list that included Peterson, Kerry Shirty, Darryl Barksdale, Mike Parker, John Tvedtness and so on. I attended the first FAIR conference. I spoke at the second one.  I was a defender for years on the Mormon Discussion Board as well as here.  For 15 years I spent a lot of time on apologetics. ANd then I couldn't.  So be careful.  But hey I said that I could be  reading my own experience on you. And I was letting you know how it is not fun to be analyzed by someone who really does not know you.

 

Yea But I never have made this argument. How may others do I do not know. It seems to me a caricature that once again plays well to the persecution process.  Jeck I was as faithful as they come for 52 years.  Had you told me 15 years ago I would end up where in am in regards to my faith I would have thought you were crazy as ever.

 

Yes.  So?  THere are well educated and well informed experienced believers in other faiths that fins substance in what their religion claims as well. That does not make it correct.  But I get it.  The comment above I think applied to me for a long time and was also a compelling reason for me to hold on longer than I did.

Maybe.  Maybe not.Like I sad I had tens of thousands of posts on this and other boards defending like you do. And here I am. And there you are.  What is the difference I wonder.

Funny how no one ever questioned our motivation back when we were both amateur apologists. But you change your mind about the church, and suddenly you’re a hateful bully spewing invective. Go figure. 

[Tacenda]

29 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Funny how no one ever questioned our motivation back when we were both amateur apologists. But you change your mind about the church, and suddenly you’re a hateful bully spewing invective. Go figure. 

I wonder what we're up to on former apologists? IOW's how many now like you and Teancum.

 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

I wonder what we're up to on former apologists? IOW's how many now like you and Teancum.

 

Lots of us, just not on this board.