Anti-Mormons

[tsubotsubo]

Well, I feel hurt when people ridicule my religion, as it is so important to me, but I think it's more about not retaliating.

In mormon churches, it's largely discouraged to ridicule the religions of others, whilst I've witnessed a couple of occasions where mormonism has been 'attacked' somewhat by people of other religions (well, I've only seen 2 occasions, but I'm sure it happens quite regularly in some religions judging by the fact that I didn't have to go to the churches very long at all to hear that).

I feel hurt by this, but I keep it to myself. I don't preach at church about the errors in the religions belonging to the people that offended me. I just keep it to myself and put it behind me.

[Maurice]

Please -it appears that I have upset a couple of you with my comment. All I can say is that I did not intend to do so. I can only speak personally and I can remember the first time I read Joseph Smith History 18-20 and felt angry that it was stated 'that all were wrong'. That is why I mentioned it. I was not agreeing with the way some anti Mormons act.

Maurice

[candyprpl]

If we are intent on finding the bad in a person we are sure to find it -- likewise, if we are intent on finding the good in a person we are sure to find it.

We don't claim to be perfect and sometimes we fail to be very good examples. Anyone professing to be Christian is not always perfect in their actions. There has only been one on earth who can say without a doubt that He was perfect in all his actions.

[Misshalfway]

Please -it appears that I have upset a couple of you with my comment. All I can say is that I did not intend to do so. I can only speak personally and I can remember the first time I read Joseph Smith History 18-20 and felt angry that it was stated 'that all were wrong'. That is why I mentioned it. I was not agreeing with the way some anti Mormons act.

Maurice

Forgive me for interjecting here, Maurice. For full disclosure to you, I am LDS and I have heard this concern before. To be honest, it is a surprising reaction for someone to be hurt by such an assertion, if you don't mind me saying. If Joseph Smith was wrong, why be hurt by that? Why not just say, "Old Joe is wrong" and be done with it.

[candyprpl]

This didn't happen until a month or so after the major clean-up, but when the media caught the story of the Church's contributions to the people affected by Katrina, especially by Church volunteers, it was a fairly big story,

Perhaps I am wrong on when the news story broke, but I don't think it was emphasized more in Utah than elsewhre in the country. I believe the story was genuinely covered nationwide because the Church's service was so extensive it truly made a big difference.

Elphaba

The only thing that made the media in the southwest (where I live) is all the volunteers that helped out not anything specifically identifying the church. I learned about it only in the Church News.

[rameumptom]

Please do not take this the wrong way. I am not a Mormon but you must remember that many of what you call anti Mormons have read the words in Joseph Smith -History 18 -20 and equally feel hurt.

Maurice

Well, that is something they will have to learn to live with. I personally think that what Joseph Smith was told BY GOD, is a lot nicer than having a "Christian" say to my face that I am a demon and will go to hell.

You've got to remember, Joseph was reporting what was told to him by God. If he really did see God, then what do you have to feel hurt about? It becomes an issue of following God more closely.

Do you think Jesus went around apologizing for saying, "Whoa unto ye Pharisees, hypocrites!"? I highly doubt it. Instead, I believe some of his words were couched in tough terms to provoke people into reviewing their lives and repenting. His words in the New Testament are just as harsh, if not harsher, than the words He said to Joseph in condemning the false creeds of our day. Or do you actually think that Jesus would not condemn false creeds today? Do you think he is happy with creeds such as limited atonement, indulgences, etc.?

Nowhere in the Bible was Jesus politically correct. In Joseph's day, the pastors were equally strong or stronger in their condemnation of sin. What's harsher: condemning false creeds, or driving people from place to place for their religious beliefs? Why do you feel Jesus and Joseph Smith must be politically correct in the 21st century, in things stated 150+ years ago?

[rameumptom]

I just cannot understand the level of hurt being expressed. 150+ years ago, Joseph explained an experience of his, where he was TOLD that the creeds were false. How is that offensive?

Second, was that anymore offensive than he and his people being driven from place to place: New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri, Illinois, Utah? Or was his murder by a gang of 200 any less offensive than a statement saying that the creeds of Christianity were false?

How about the many Christian churches today, which hold classes on "cults" and specialize on the cult of Mormonism? Is that less offensive than this one statement that Joseph is relaying information given him by God? How about the DVD Jesus/Joseph Smith that went out to hundreds of thousands of homes a year ago, stating that Joseph was an evil impostor? How about the time a few years back when the Baptists held their annual convention in SLC, so they could call the Mormons to repentance and back into their form of Christianity? Was that less offensive than Joseph relaying a message?

Joseph never said that Christians are wicked. He said that the creeds are false!

How is that offensive? If Joseph was truly told this of God, perhaps you should pay attention to it. If he wasn't, why not just ignore it? Take a look at the creeds. Do you agree with all of them? Do you agree with the creed of Indulgences? How about Calvin's TULIP, where there is only a limited atonement?

I've asked this a few times before, and still await a comment from you on it. If these are true creeds, then you should defend them. If you disagree with these creeds, then why be offended that Joseph also felt them to be false? What say you?

[omega0401]

Please -it appears that I have upset a couple of you with my comment. All I can say is that I did not intend to do so. I can only speak personally and I can remember the first time I read Joseph Smith History 18-20 and felt angry that it was stated 'that all were wrong'. That is why I mentioned it. I was not agreeing with the way some anti Mormons act.

Maurice

There is another way to look at it. You do realize that with so many religions teaching and believing so differently that they can't all be right. All will be wrong except the Lord's only true church. There is only one God and one faith as the bible teaches us not many faiths.

[omega0401]

And I know that most of what I've posted is true. I've had a LOT of proof for each of the, seemingly hundreds of facts, thrown in my face, but some of them actually are not true. For example, Joseph Smith did not prophesy that men live on the moon. I haven't found a first-hand account of him saying it yet, and, if the church is true, he wouldn't have prophesied incorrectly, and if the church isn't true, he wouldn't be able to prophesy at all. A more reasonable accusation to make would be 'Joseph Smith and Brigham Young said men live on the moon'.

Anyways, sorry that I clearly upset you, and sorry in advance if my attempt at justifying myself has upset you further.

I've heard about the men on the moon story before and I haven't seen where this came from but I hope you realize that not everything Joseph Smith said was in the name of the Lord. He wasn't a prophet 24 hours a day only when he was moved upon by the Holy Ghost.

The Lord did not take away Joseph own personal opinions about things when He called him to be His chosen mouth-piece upon the earth. So when I hear these stories I have to ask myself, did he speak this as his own opinion or in the name of the Lord? And you can pretty much tell when he was speaking in the name of the Lord. I hope that helps.

[jimuk]

Maurice, Do you not want a prophet on the earth, do you not feel it in your heart that with a prophet we/you have direct contact with heavenly father through these prophets.

Joseph smith was such a prophet, and from the word go, as soon as he told people about his visitation he was persecuted, people would cross to the other side of the street when they see him coming, pretty tough going for a young lad of 15yrs dont you think, a lot to take onto such a young boys shoulders.

rameumptom says it all in his post, so please look into your heart, and i would plead with you in the name of Jesus christ to ask your father in heaven if Brother Joseph was a prophet.

If you ask, really wanting, needing to know, with no bitterness, your father will let it be known to you by the spirit.

It is such a simple way of of finding out.

[mike_uk]

Maurice, Do you not want a prophet on the earth, do you not feel it in your heart that with a prophet we/you have direct contact with heavenly father through these prophets.

Joseph smith was such a prophet, and from the word go, as soon as he told people about his visitation he was persecuted, people would cross to the other side of the street when they see him coming, pretty tough going for a young lad of 15yrs dont you think, a lot to take onto such a young boys shoulders.

rameumptom says it all in his post, so please look into your heart, and i would plead with you in the name of Jesus christ to ask your father in heaven if Brother Joseph was a prophet.

If you ask, really wanting, needing to know, with no bitterness, your father will let it be known to you by the spirit.

It is such a simple way of of finding out.

Jim, its really not that simple.

There was a time when i believed Joseph to be a prophet of God. However my own research through early church history really sent my world crashing down and truth be told I have not got over it. The church was my life.

With this new found knowledge I pleaded with Heavenly Father if Jospeh was indeed a prophet. All I felt was emptiness, dispair and darkness leading me to one conclusion and that is "imo" he cannot be a prophet.

Some of us here have and can hadle this information and just pretend it never happened or that we dont fully understand or that it was just made up trash to spoil Jospeh's name. But a great deal of it isnt lies or slander and I cannot see how I could possibly change my mind or be convinced otherwise about how I feel about Joseph. Should I just pretend they never happened to or brush them under a carpet?

I for one cannot accept the things he did as commandments from god. If you can and it makes you happy then more power to you.

[VisionOfLehi]

But people can believe that God slew the firstborn children of Egypt?

[Jenamarie]

I think Joseph Smith has a huge disadvantage to ancient prophets: very many details of his personal life were preserved, his history is recent, and he was American. There seems to be a lot of leeway given to the mistakes of the ancient Prophets living in foreign lands in different times. We don't know much about their childhoods, or what their pre-Apostolic/Prophet adult lives were like, or what they did during their "off" times when they weren't actively preaching God's word. One of the apostles *denied Christ three times* and yet he is still very much reveered in Christendom. We don't know if Isaiah ever lost his temper. We DO know that Noah got so smashing drunk that he didn't realize it was his own daughters he has having sex with, yet I never hear Christians decrying his claim to Prophethood as I'm about 99.9% sure would be the case if it had been something Joseph had done.

Obviously Joseph wasn't perfect. He screwed up on more than one occasion. But I keep coming back to the thought of: do his mistakes negate his claim to Prophethood? God has such Spiritually fragile, highly rebellious material to work with in building His Kingdom here on Earth. To say that His chosen Servents would never do something that He didn't approve of is setting ourselves up to rejecting all of the Written Word, simply because of the mistakes of His messengers.

Of course that doesn't mean that everyone's claim to Prophethood is valid, but we can't look solely at the character of the messenger in determining the validity of their claim. Jesus Himself was accused of being a deranged alcoholic.

[jimuk]

Hi Mike, come on, this guy is human and capable of human fail abilities ( if thay are the correct words lol) He is not the first and not the last to make mistakes, whatever you think of him he was a prophet of god, prophets throughout the scriptures made mistakes, and are rebuked for doing so.

You must ask yourself "why is Joseph himself used as a weapon against the very church he was commanded to reestablish on the earth" its not rocket science, it is Satan using the multitudes to try to destroy the true church of Jesus Christ.

As i have said many times, If this church is so wrong then wouldent it be easier for Satan to just leave us alone and let us get on with it, of course he would, for we would be sealing our own fate, much easier for him to go after some other religion that was drawing to near to heavenly father, am i the only one to see this lol.

Whatever you think of Joseph, it needent turn you against the good works that the prophets and other saints continue to do in the world, no need to utter bad things towards Jesus's church.

Thanks for listening Mike

[mike_uk]

Hi Jim

Im not against the saints as people as I have said previously. If I did I would have serious problems and probably divorce. Not to mention lack of friends :)

My problems are not the members, most I know are awesome people and would drop everything to help at a moments notice. Most are genuinely christ like people and care for me no matter what I feel about the church. I really mean that Jim.

Have you actually researched this stuff for yourself. Scrutinized it as we have been advised to by the prophets of old? Perhaps you should to get a better picture as to why I and others have come to these conclusions and find it so hard to accept.

You know guys, I never set out to destroy my faith on purpose, had no need to as I was more than happy. However one thing lead to another, I built up a hefty amount of evidence and a whole host of skeletons and I peronally cannot ignore it and hope it goes away becasue it won't.

But what I do know is that somehow I will have to move on and let go becasue this whole thing is destroying me and I am unable to let it go. I have destroyed my wifes teenage dream of marrying a good LDS priesthood holder that will take her back to heavenly father. Ive broken her heart along with my 7 year old daughter when I told her last weak that I would not be able to baptise her, dam that hurt so much. I wanted to just die when she reminded when, trying to hold back her tears "that you baptised (eldest daughter) last year".

No matter what people say to me, I blame Joseph Smith for this hurt.

Sorry for the rant everyone. Its just whats going on with me

[VisionOfLehi]

I've heard plenty about Joseph Smith, read the scrutiny. Heard what people have to say.

And, well, it was always a non-issue for me.

Sorry about your problem, I wish I could understand better and offer some advice.

[KosherXMorg]

I am so glad I have realized the gift the the Lord gave us was the Book of Mormon, not Joseph Smith. I have freedom to believe what it tells me now and not to be bound down by the false teachings and ideas of those who have claimed to be prophets or apostles. I wish you, MikeUK, would see the value in the Book of Mormon and not reject it because of Joseph sins. There are other churches that use it that are not bound to LDS traditions, that see it for the gift it is and acknowledge the sins the the early leaders.

[Guest ceeboo]

Hi all,

I am not confident that my perspective is desired but I thought I would offer it and see what follows.

It has been VERY difficult for me to read the last several posts.

( especially when one is going through a rough period ) ( YOU KNOW WE ALL DO AS BROKEN PEOPLE)

Love ? Kindness ? extended a hand when needed? compassion for eachother ?

Sorry, but I saw alot of " would rather have this than that " " nana nana na na " ,

"My hurt is worse then your hurt " , VERY HARD READING

At any rate, that's my take for what it's worth

God bless,

Carl

[OtterPop]

Quote by Otterpop

"In my own case, I left the Church for spiritual reasons, gradually and gently by God. I was led to a richer belief and a richer life outside Mormonism. You could say I was "deconverted" after having been born into Mormonism. And Moroni 10 certainly had a lot to do with it."

I'm curious about this statement and was wondering if you could explain what happened. . . . So bottom line -- I'm just curious -- I am not interested in telling you your decision is wrong because it goes against what I believe.

Care to explain for yourself?

This is a really good thread. I haven't logged in since Sunday because I have had a very busy week at work and have been working overtime to get everything done.

It is not easy to explain in this kind of setting how I came to be an exMormon, and my own understanding of how my spiritual life has unfolded (and continues to unfold) evolves as I mature.

I can tell you exactly how Moroni 10 came into it, and what my very first step out of the LDS church was -- though I certainly didn't know it at the time.

When I was 15, I read the Book of Mormon for the first time. I read it in conjunction with home-study seminary. I remember the chart I had from one of my seminary workbooks: block letters spelling out "I've read the Book of Mormon," divided into 239 small blocks. As I read each chapter, I filled in the block with my yellow highlighter.

I had thought reading the Book Mormon would be kind of boring. I had always gotten stuck in the Isaiah chapters of 2nd Nephi before. But I discovered that after 2nd Nephi, it wasn't hard. It really does contain epic stories, arresting images of events, people, and places. I was comfortable with the spiritual teachings, and had planned to read the Book of Mormon for a long time. It was finally reaching a very important goal.

I finished the Book of Mormon mid-week, and I decided that after church the next Sunday I would spend some time alone and follow Moroni's counsel in Moroni 10:3-5. (I don't have to look up the scriptural reference, even after all these years.) That afternoon, I knelt down beside my bed, as I had so many times before. I had received a lot of guidance through prayers, and I had absolute faith that I would receive a witness by the Holy Ghost of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. I prayed sincerely and with humility and with an open heart. And what happened was . . .

Nothing.

It is the closest I had ever come to having a sense of a "stupor of thought." Many years later, I realized that this experience broke my heart. It is absolutely one of the most painful and confusing experiences of my life.

But please don't think I concluded the BoM was untrue or that the Church wasn't true. No, I concluded that there was something wrong with me or with how I had approached Moroni's promise. I had faith in the Church; it was the foundation of everything I believed and everything I planned to do in my life. I had always been taught to pray that the the BoM was true -- not to pray about whether it was true. That it wasn't true was genuinely an unthinkable thought to me then.

And please don't think I was expecting a "sign." I had truly expected only a quiet sense that this was right -- the same kind of quiet guidance I typically had in answer to prayers on things I had "studied out in my mind."

I never got that sense about the BoM or the truthfulness of the Church. I had guidance in many other things, even a couple of answer to prayers that were fairly dramatic and showed stunning synchronicity.

But never to that prayer about the very cornerstone of Mormonism. I kept attending church, and believing, and praying, and journaling, and having callings, and doing service projects, and attending seminary, and going to stake dances, and . . . everything. I attended BYU for 7 years, and when I did stop attending church knowing that I would never go back, I was a temple-recommend-worthy adult who had never even tasted coffee.

In those 12 years, I did a lot of searching and soul-searching, and had a lot of answers to prayers and a lot of spiritual guidance -- and it all led me out of the LDS Church.

That's my testimony of my experience with the Book of Mormon.

Edited July 25, 2008 by OtterPop

[OtterPop]

Four families in six years = an average of one family every 18 months. A shameful occurrence, to be sure; but given that you are living in a city that is probably a third Mormon and that you are surrounded by Latter-day Saints, meeting one bad apple (or family) every 18 months should not be overly surprising.

Like, for example, if they're unfriendly to you when they find out you're not LDS?

4 times in 6 years != common.

Vort,

You're doing a good job of trying to dismiss a valid complaint about common -- yes, common -- Mormon behavior that goes directly counter to what GBH told members to do. And if I know that he gave a talk on this very thing, it has to be common knowledge among Mormons in Utah, because I read it in the Salt Lake Tribune.

I have had several friends who are non-members with school-age children express puzzlement at the number of their kids' friend who could no longer play at their house because the friends' parents found out they are "non-members."

My father was in the army when I was growing up. We lived a number of different places, including the deep South, and I was never barred from being friends with anyone because of my religion. Not once in 17 years. I think fours time is a LOT for such weird behavior.

[OtterPop]

If you ask, really wanting, needing to know, with no bitterness, your father will let it be known to you by the spirit. It is such a simple way of of finding out.

jimuk,

I believe it was simple for you, but you cannot possibly know what will happen for someone else.

[OtterPop]

As i have said many times, If this church is so wrong then wouldent it be easier for Satan to just leave us alone and let us get on with it, of course he would, for we would be sealing our own fate, much easier for him to go after some other religion that was drawing to near to heavenly father, am i the only one to see this lol.

This is a specious argument that so many Mormons use, and it's one part of a circular argument. If something goes smoothly for the LDS Church, it's because it's God's church and He is clearing the way. If there are difficulties, it's because it's God's church, and Satan is fighting it.

Using this "logic," Scientology is a lot closer to the truth than Mormonism.

[Elphaba]

Hi tsubotsubo,

Okay, sorry if my post has upset you, but I've had many, what I consider to be 'anti-mormons' question me, in real life, as to why I'm a mormon. When this all first started happening to me, I believed they were sincere, and interested in my religion, but it just spun out of control, and now, today, they clearly have found a list of facts that 'disprove' my religion, and expect me respond everytime,

First, your post did not upset me, per se. It is the assumption by so many posters that because I am an ex-Mormon and an atheist, that nothing have to say has any merit, and that I must be an anti-Mormon.

Your sincere response was very kind and level, and I really appreciate that. As far as the people on the site who think I have no place here, they are wrong. If they could get past the stereotype, they would discover I am not an "anti," and that I can, sometimes, add perspectives that are useful, especially to those who are open to them, knowing they are not meant to offend, but just to discuss.

I also agree the people you've talked to are incredibly rude. If I were you, once you realized their agenda, I would thank them for their information, and then tell them you were not going to discuss it with them anymore. You are not obligated to give them a reason why, and while they will still try to bait you, if you keep refusing to discuss it, in a polite manner, eventually they would stop.

and there's just so much 'darkness' in my religion that they've gone on from years, and repeated themselves very little.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I don't perceive "darkness," though there are quite a few questionable incidents.

But learning about these issues, in my opinion, has three positives:

1) You will discover the earliest members were flawed, yet their courage was inspiring. The fledgling Church had many setbacks, but it thrived despite them.

2) You will discover what I call the “difficult issues” of the Church’s history, and given your strong testimony, you probably will be even more moved by how difficult it was for these people to keep going, despite set back after set back.

3) You will also discover the difficult issues, that are seriously hard to accept, or explain. For example, while Joseph was, in my opinion, a man of deep compassion and fortitude, he also did some things that were not ethical. And again, if you know about these things in advance, you will not be side-swiped by those who want to use these incidents to make you feel foolish.

You will also understand that whatever Joseph did, it was for the Church. He never sought riches or power. He was a complex man, who had a hard time when people disagreed with him. But whatever happened, even when his decisions were not the best, it was always for the survival of the Church.

Now I'm considered an absolute deluded idiot for being part of a religion that seems to discriminate against everyone except white, straight men. These people clearly are 'against mormonism (or maybe against me), but they're definately 'anti'.

This is one of these "difficult truths" I described earlier, because there are Latter-day Saints who still believe this. One of them is my mother. Additionally, I'm 52, and I remember everyone believing this when I was a child in the Church, though I think this belief was only taught in the early pioneer days of the Church.

I also think it is probably restricted to Utah and the western states, but I am not sure about that. But as I alluded to above, my mother still believes African Americans were the less valiant in the pre-existence, and her bigotry is appalling. When we talked about Katrina she was so bigoted I literally was nauseous. And we still cannot talk about it today, as I feel physically assaulted by her bigotry. So, there are members who do fit your friend's description.

And then, of course, there are Brigham’s, and other leaders’ comments about African American’s inferiority.

So how do you deal with this when it is brought up? You admit it. You say it was true, and it was wrong, and that you wish it hadn’t happened, but it did.

And then either refuse to discuss it, or you can explain the Church’s leaders have acknowledged this, and have exhorted its members that discrimination is unacceptable and of the adversary. President Hinckley was especially insistent about this, and it is the reason I loved him.

It never really occured to me that people can discuss these things with mormons and actually be genuinely interested rather than make a fool of them. It's just that, for me, everytime I respond to their evidence against mormonism, they just say that my replies are immature, or vague, or contradict myself, and it makes me very upset, as I have no one to help me.

Are you a very new member? If so, that can make it difficult, as there is a lot of information to absorb. Again, until you feel comfortable, just tell them you're not going to discuss it. Be firm, because you are not obligated to talk to people who only want to berate you. Perhaps once you feel more comfortable, you can choose to discuss it.

Let me give you an example from my own life: I lived in Salt Lake, and used to work with a woman who held the Church in disdain. She was not originally from America, and when she moved to Utah she was put off by its religiosity. She knew I was an ex-Mormon, and we discussed the Church often.

She would often claim things were "doctrine," when they were not. For example, she insisted members had to bring their tax returns to tithing settlements. I actually know of one obscure bishop who did insist on this, and suspect she had heard of this through office gossip; however, I know it is not proper procedure, and not practiced, and I was very adamant about this with her. But she would not believe me. However, I didn't let it bother me, because she was not open to the truth; and only wanted someone to agree with her, and when she was wrong, I would not do that.

But if I had been new to the Church, and not as familiar with its history and doctrine, then I would not have felt comfortable talking with her, and would have told her I didn't want to. She was a very aggressive person, so I would have had to be very insistent. But I'm pretty good at that, so it wasn't a problem.

Now, I've just gotten to a point where I research everything in advance, using sites like FAIR and exmormon.org to be prepared (and it does quite annoy them when I am for some reason).

Good for you! It will help you, I promise. You might also want to visit MADB, which is an apologetics site supporting and discussing Church issues. (Apologetics only means it defends the Church, not that it’s apologizing for anything. It’s an academic term.)

I would say, and it’s my opinion only, that FAIR can be as biased as those you consider anti-Mormons. Additionally, not everything you discover at exmormon.com is untrue. In fact, I found the Sunstone article I posted at exmormon.com via a google search.

The more time you spend reading information from both sides, the more you’ll be able to discern those on the “fringes," and those who are reasonable and informative. At least, that was my experience.

And I know that most of what I've posted is true. I've had a LOT of proof for each of the, seemingly hundreds of facts, thrown in my face, but some of them actually are not true. For example, Joseph Smith did not prophesy that men live on the moon. I haven't found a first-hand account of him saying it yet, and, if the church is true, he wouldn't have prophesied incorrectly, and if the church isn't true, he wouldn't be able to prophesy at all. A more reasonable accusation to make would be 'Joseph Smith and Brigham Young said men live on the moon'.

See, just as you’ve discovered, this incident is not black and white. In fact, the article I've attached below delves even further into the “men on the moon” comments, explaining this was not an unusual belief at the time, and I think you’ll find it very interesting. I did.

The following is an excerpt from a Sunstone article about this issue:

In the first half of the nineteenth century scientists may have differed on the question of intelligent life on the moon, but such a notion was by no means a discredited idea. In 1822 William Herschel died. He was the greatest astronomer of his time; he discovered the planet Uranus in 1781 and became official astronomer to King George III. In 1976 Patrick Moore, Director of the Lunar Section of the British Astronomical Association, wrote of William Herschel: As an observer it is possible that he has never been equaled, and between 1781 and his death, in 1822, every honor that the scientific world could bestow came his way. His views about life in the Solar System were, then, rather surprising. He thought it possible that there was a region below the Sun’s fiery surface where men might live, and he regarded the existence of life on the Moon as "an absolute certainty."

In 1780 Herschel, in a letter to a disbelieving astronomer, asked: Who can say that it is not extremely probable, nay beyond doubt, that there must be inhabitants on the Moon of some kind or another?

I do have two last comments "before I close." (No, this is not a Sacrament talk.)

1. All of my advice about how to approach those who would demean your faith is just that: advice. You are perfectly capable of deciding how you want to deal with this. So just take my advice in the way it is offered, and do as you best decide.

2. I sense from your strong testimony that your conversion was profound, and I am sincerely very glad for you. But many of us have not had the same experience, despite doing everything you, and anyone else has done, to gain that testimony. So while we may approach issues from different angles, it does not mean I am an "anti," and you are not beyond the discussion. That is a very good thing, IMO.

So, if you’ve gotten this far, thanks for reading my ramblings. We all have different perspectives, but that doesn't mean there needs to be discord and distrust.

Elphaba

Edited July 25, 2008 by Elphaba

[Islander]

This is a subject worth researching in detail and perhaps even developing an inquiry scope for a thesis. I seriously doubt that it has similitude in other religious tradition.

Here is an LDS forum, with very explicit and publicly stated purposes, where the expectation is for those perhaps of other faith seeking information about LDS religion and traditions, or members hoping to share and exchange experiences and knowledge seek and congregate. What I have found, very surprisingly, is that a very significant group of participants are no longer members, seriously inactive, atheists, of other faiths but not seriously seeking to understand but to offer a counterpoint to LDS doctrine or simply to showcase their own brand of Christianity.

I am not a psychologist, but I am sure one of them would find these conflicting dynamics fascinating! People engaged, compelled by an unknown drive to participate in (the forum) something they admittedly want no part of (LDS religion), they decided of their own volition to abandon or simply believe otherwise not to be true! But they spend hours literally engaged in the exchange.

I am just beside myself!!

[Elphaba]

This is a subject worth researching in detail and perhaps even developing an inquiry scope for a thesis.

A woman whose screen name is Juliann at Mormon Apologetics Discussion Board, has discussed Apostates in the Study of NRMs for quite some time. (I’m sorry, it’s been so long since I’ve visited the site that I’ve forgotten what “NRM” stands for.)

Of course, I disagree with her conclusions, as I find her bias too entrenched for the objectivity the research deserves. However, I’m sure you will enjoy the thread very much, and I say that with no sarcasm.

I seriously doubt that it has similitude in other religious tradition.

I wonder how many tracts, message boards, expose’s, “Christian or Cult” discussions, or any of the myriad of other detractors’ methods it takes to determine whether one religious tradition is more despised than another?

And what if the one has only ten, twenty, or two gazillion more detractors than the other? Does that make the one religious tradition more true, or less true, than the others?

I googled Jehovah’s Witnesses, and within ten minutes I had eleven websites divulging the ills of this religious tradition. A few of these have forums that look much like lds.net.

Jehovah's Witnesses - Christian or Cult?

Jehovah's Witness Exposed Home Page

Spotlight on Jehovah's Witnesses

BEACON for former Jehovah's Witnesses

Jehovah's Witnesses Recovery - Beyond Jehovah's Witnesses (contents)

Jehovah's Witness Online - Discussion Board Index page

Witnessing to Jehovah's Witnesses - EffectiveEvangelism.com

Jehovah's Witness New Convert website

Diane Wilson - Reviews

Jehovah's Witnesses grow by 'devious' methods, charge anti-missionaries - Haar

Reasoning with Jehovah's Witnesses, Introduction

An “inquiry scope” would yield similar detractors from many other religious traditions, including some we have probably never heard of. In fact, I’m surprised a man capable of elucidating the descriptor “inquiry scope” did not think to actually have a go at discovering these other “religious traditions'” detractors before making the query.

(I'm so sorry. I'm being mean because "inquiry scope" is so collegiate and pedantic. As a former editor, and in spite of my masters' "inquiry scope," I guess I wrote for the masses for far too long, because putting "inquiry scope" on a message board just cracks me up.)

I have two very good friends who may be willing to add scope to the inquiry. In fact, they both joined the Church about six months ago, perhaps a little less. While their decisions were made, of course, with their own hearts, I know that my support did mean something to each of them. And I love them both dearly and will always support their decisions.

You know, now that I think of it, given your concern about those of us who are no longer LDS, who enjoy participating on the site, (but are not interested in understanding), there are other LDS boards out there that are very happy to hear your testimony, including those of my friends, but not mine. And I have absolutely no problem with this. The one I have in mind does not allow any negative discussion of anything pertaining to the Church. Interested?

Here is an LDS forum, with very explicit and publicly stated purposes, where the expectation is for those perhaps of other faith seeking information about LDS religion and traditions, or members hoping to share and exchange experiences and knowledge seek and congregate.

What I have found, very surprisingly, is that a very significant group of participants are no longer members, seriously inactive, atheists, of other faiths but not seriously seeking to understand but to offer a counterpoint to LDS doctrine or simply to showcase their own brand of Christianity.

That is unfortunate.

Luckily, I have found literally dozens of interesting people whose stories are complex, yet moving, and inspiring, both LDS and non. I find it is always stimulating to read about different people’s perspectives, including those who are staunchly LDS.

Most posters, in my opinion, are not put off by honesty. I know many posters are surprised by my atheism at first, but if they take the time to get to know me, they realize I’m just a silly old woman with nothing better to do than spend time on a Mormon message board because I love it, and that I have no ulterior motives to worry anyone’s head about.

That does not mean we always agree. I have strong disagreements with a few of my closest friends. But the discussion has been worthwhile, though rocky at first. I know I am very glad we stuck it out. I am thinking of particularly two friends for whom I care quite a lot. Maybe three, but that's it. Okay, thirty. You know who you are.

I am not a psychologist, but I am sure one of them would find these conflicting dynamics fascinating! People engaged, compelled by an unknown drive to participate in (the forum) something they admittedly want no part of (LDS religion), they decided of their own volition to abandon or simply believe otherwise not to be true!

That is interesting, I suppose. Why don’t you find a psychologist who would be fascinated? I’m sure if your search were unsuccessful, you could write an “inquiry scope,” to pique a wavering psychologist’s interest.

(Okay, I promise. I'll be good from now on. In fact, you can have a swipe at me next time. You've earned it!)

But they spend hours literally engaged in the exchange. . . .

Guilty as charged!

I am disabled, and joined the site when it was LDSTALK. Things have changed since the transition to lds.net, as my participation was never questioned on TALK. But I admit, I never sleep, am often bedbound, and spend literally hours and hours engaged in the exchange.

I also admit I do have a reason for my love of discussing the Church that is personal, and thus, something I will not disclose. But I have no nefarious motives, and like I said, once you get to know me. . . well, you get the idea.

I am just beside myself!!

Yikes! Does it hurt?

Elphaba

Edited July 25, 2008 by Elphaba
Because I felt like it.