Your perception of ex Mormonism

[Tough Grits]

One thought that occured to me while I was reviewing the thread earlier today:

"Ex-"smokers, "ex-"addicts, "recovering" alcoholics, ex-prositutes, and ex-used car salesmen all define themselves by something they are not anymore.

In every instance, whatever categorization they use (be it smoker, addict, alcoholic, Congressman, etc.), it is nearly always something they are running away from.

The negative connotion is implicit and well-nigh inescapable.

Those who call themselves "ex-Mormon", "ex-Catholic", or "formerly sane" are implicitly revealing a negative attitude towards their former allegience, condition, or lifestyle.

Whenever someone says, "She turned me into a newt!", followed by the statement, "I got better...", that individual is implicitly stating that "being a newt" is a less-than-desirable state of affairs.

On the other hand, I occasionally refer to myself as ex-Navy when there are far, far worse things I could have been (such as Air Force).

Now....if you need me, I'll be looking for a little peril at Castle Anthrax.

emphasis added by TG.

Interesting. I wonder if that is why I do not refer to myself as an "ex-atheist", as I do not view those years as necessarily negative or wasted. However, I am not an atheist now, so I guess technically I am an "ex-atheist", I just don't use that term. I just don't have negativity towards my former absence of religion. Nor do I have any hostility towards those that are currently atheist. I feel comfortable talking about my beliefs with anybody who is interested in hearing those beliefs. If not, then I am fine talking to myself.

I wasn't a bad person as an atheist, but my life was definitely without the peace, hope, and joy that I feel now. Not that my circumstances are always rosy now, but that my ability to weather storms and endure trials has increased.

Not sure how any of this fits, but your post triggered thoughts for me about who/what I used to be and how I now feel about those former beliefs. Thanks, Selek.

[redi2ride]

IMO, there are two kinds. The ones who just arent interested in any sort of effort needed to believe Christ.They rarely ever even DO any religion. Then there are the OTHER ones. The ones who BROKE UP WITH THE RELIGION. They all seem to have a teenager sense of understanding things. They seem to be very Carnel in the way they see how life should be and the expectations they precieve are put on them by the church(Victimized). Many of them are Mormon appologist's to begin with. all because they don't understand the Atonement. The falloowing video clip is why they don't get it.

[Misshalfway]

I'm glad you used the word "perception" in the original post, because that is all my opinion would be.

When someone leaves the church, how could anyone possibly know all the reasons that contributed to the decision? OR to why the anger and bitterness we think we see is there in the first place?

What's that saying?.... "Walk back into your enemies past three generations and he won't be an enemy anymore."

And even if we are right and we see a an angry one spewing putrid vengance in front of us, what good does it do to judge them? This isn't how Jesus does it. And even if it is, I think I'll let Him do the calling out.

I'd rather just listen to why they are angry and empathize with that. Not that I'm very good at it. Perhaps I aspire to be better at that rather than rushing to argue or fix. I suspect the world would be a better place if we did this more than we did that. I think religious tentions would decline if we did this more. I think the ex-mormon's rage would decrease..... But that would mean that we would have to stop being so threatened by others and their agency. And that's hard, I'll admit.

[prisonchaplain]

Former members of any religion often feel humiliated. They think they were foolish to have ever believed, that much time (and perhaps money) was wasted. Sometimes they believe those in authority are intentional in propagating what is not true. So, whether they be former Pentecostals who now deride tongues as gibberish, and our exuberant worship as silly emotional antics; or whether they be former LDS, who believe the whole of the latter day revelations are fiction, there is a strong likelihood that ex's and formers are going to be less than generous towards that which is behind.

I had some brief interactions with former LDS and the most positive description I can offer of their counsel to me (knowing that I come here) is that they were very cautionary. In fairness, most people try to look for the good in others, but approach people with serious differences of opinion with a great deal of caution.

[selek]

When someone leaves the church, how could anyone possibly know all the reasons that contributed to the decision? OR to why the anger and bitterness we think we see is there in the first place?

Miss Halfway, you miss the point.

If you read the posts above, you will discover that being an "ex-Mormon"- and worse, being categorized as one- is not about attitude, but about actions.

The review linked in the OP of the Dehlin thread is 98 pages of demonstrating how actions outwiegh pretty words.

I don't know of any faithful LDS (though logic insists there must be some) who have a problem with someone who simply falls away in disbelief or inactivity and moves on to what they perceive as greener pastures.

Where we have a problem is the militant agitator, the bomb-throwing instigator, and the in-your-face Pharisee who is not content to leave the Church, but who insists on justifying his decision by trying to destroy the testimony of others.

We, as Latter-day Saints, are commanded to comfort those that mourn and weep with those who are afflicted. While we (as with all men) can do better, in general we do pretty well. We do not seek out people to condemn, but offer compassion, love, and welcome to those who are lost and searching.

We do very well in being patient, long-suffering, understanding, and forgiving to those who need or desire these things.

On the other hand, we are nowhere, and in no wise commanded to harbor or encourage those who would destroy the faith. In point of fact, we are told NOT to tolerate such individuals in our midst as much for fear of their damnation as our own.

As far as an ex-Mormon's motivation goes, very often we can take them at their word.

If someone tells me he hates the Church because they didn't peel open his skull with a melon baller and pour in a graduate level course in speculation on Joseph's alleged flaws, I don't need to guess or speculate about his motivation.

If someone tells me that he doesn't believe anymore- for whatever reason- I don't need an in-depth, comprehensive psychiatric evaluation to conclude that he isn't interested in being a Mormon.

Neither conclusion, however, warrants the individual bashing or attacking the Church, sneering at those who remain faithful, or of using half-truths to attack, belittle, or demonize the Church of Christ.

And even if we are right and we see a an angry one spewing putrid vengance in front of us, what good does it do to judge them? This isn't how Jesus does it.

Bull pockey.

Your argument is biblically illiterate (or you are being disingenuous). Christ and his disciples call out liars, false prophets, and those who would lead astray the members of the Church with startling clarity and startling regularity.

Neither the Savior, nor his Prophets, nor his Disciples had any truck with wolves in sheep's clothing or with those who sought to undermine His work.

In point of fact, we are commanded to use righteous judgement in every aspect of our lives- and that includes judging those who desire to separate us from the Church of Christ.

I'd rather just listen to why they are angry and empathize with that. Not that I'm very good at it. Perhaps I aspire to be better at that rather than rushing to argue or fix.

Even if it means allowing false prophets access to your children?

I suspect the world would be a better place if we did this more than we did that. I think religious tentions would decline if we did this more.

In other words, if we stop teaching our peculiar doctrines, if we stop proclaiming our peculiar authority and pedigree, if we stop proclaiming those inconvenient truths- if we would just go along to get along- we could win the praise and adulation of the pomp of Babylon.

I'm sorry, but my calling and commission as Priesthood Holder and witness for Christ come from the Son of God, not the Church of Public Relations.

I understand your desire for the praise of Man, but as for me and my House- we shall serve the Lord.

I think the ex-mormon's rage would decrease..... But that would mean that we would have to stop being so threatened by others and their agency.

This statement is a classic presentation of Battered Wife Syndrome.

Despite all evidence to the contrary, it's OUR fault that they hate us, and if we just love them enough, just compromise our integrity enough, just put up with the bruises and split lips and blackeyes enough, then they'll realize they love us after all.

Unfortunately real life doesn't work that way.

To continue the analogy, the Church (and the body of believers) are the Bride of Christ- and is in no way deserving of the slings and arrows and lies and slanders which apostates, fools, and turncoats heap on it day in and day out.

The notion that we must sit silently and complaisant while the Church is defamed is a fundamentally unhealthy, dysfunctional, and supremely evil mindset.

Edited February 25, 2013 by selek

[Misshalfway]

Miss Halfway, you miss the point.

If you read the posts above, you will discover that being an "ex-Mormon"- and worse, being categorized as one- is not about attitude, but about actions.

The review linked in the OP of the Dehlin thread is 98 pages of demonstrating how actions outwiegh pretty words.

I don't know of any faithful LDS (though logic insists there must be some) who have a problem with someone who simply falls away in disbelief or inactivity and moves on to what they perceive as greener pastures.

Where we have a problem is the militant agitator, the bomb-throwing instigator, and the in-your-face Pharisee who is not content to leave the Church, but who insists on justifying his decision by trying to destroy the testimony of others.

We, as Latter-day Saints, are commanded to comfort those that mourn and weep with those who are afflicted. While we (as with all men) can do better, in general we do pretty well. We do not seek out people to condemn, but offer compassion, love, and welcome to those who are lost and searching.

We do very well in being patient, long-suffering, understanding, and forgiving to those who need or desire these things.

On the other hand, we are nowhere, and in no wise commanded to harbor or encourage those who would destroy the faith. In point of fact, we are told NOT to tolerate such individuals in our midst as much for fear of their damnation as our own.

As far as an ex-Mormon's motivation goes, very often we can take them at their word.

If someone tells me he hates the Church because they didn't peel open his skull with a melon baller and pour in a graduate level course in speculation on Joseph's alleged flaws, I don't need to guess or speculate about his motivation.

If someone tells me that he doesn't believe anymore- for whatever reason- I don't need an in-depth, comprehensive psychiatric evaluation to conclude that he isn't interested in being a Mormon.

Neither conclusion, however, warrants the individual bashing or attacking the Church, sneering at those who remain faithful, or of using half-truths to attack, belittle, or demonize the Church of Christ.

Bull pockey.

Your argument is biblically illiterate (or you are being disingenuous). Christ and his disciples call out liars, false prophets, and those who would lead astray the members of the Church with startling clarity and startling regularity.

Neither the Savior, nor his Prophets, nor his Disciples had any truck with wolves in sheep's clothing or with those who sought to undermine His work.

In point of fact, we are commanded to use righteous judgement in every aspect of our lives- and that includes judging those who desire to separate us from the Church of Christ.

Even if it means allowing false prophets access to your children?

In other words, if we stop teaching our peculiar doctrines, if we stop proclaiming our peculiar authority and pedigree, if we stop proclaiming those inconvenient truths- if we would just go along to get along- we could win the praise and adulation of the pomp of Babylon.

I'm sorry, but my calling and commission as Priesthood Holder and witness for Christ come from the Son of God, not the Church of Public Relations.

I understand your desire for the praise of Man, but as for me and my House- we shall serve the Lord.

This statement is a classic presentation of Battered Wife Syndrome.

Despite all evidence to the contrary, it's OUR fault that they hate us, and if we just love them enough, just compromise our integrity enough, just put up with the bruises and split lips and blackeyes enough, then they'll realize they love us after all.

Unfortunately real life doesn't work that way.

To continue the analogy, the Church (and the body of believers) are the Bride of Christ- and is in no way deserving of the slings and arrows and lies and slanders which apostates, fools, and turncoats heap on it day in and day out.

The notion that we must sit silently and complaisant while the Church is defamed is a fundamentally unhealthy, dysfunctional, and supremely evil mindset.

Well, I guess I know where you stand.

Supremely evil, huh? When we lose our compassion and call people out without the inclination from the holy spirit, how different are we then?

If you want to look at scripture....we don't have to look too far to see the Lord say, "He who is without sin, cast the first stone." Standing for truth is a far different thing than casting stones. Don't you think? I was reprimanded by God once. He called me out. It was an experience I could never recount accurately. I don't have the words. But I can say that it scared me to death but not because it held anything close to the tone with which you write your post. Father used the words of a hymn. It was a short but firm invitation. But it was so intense...the love was so intense that I wanted to hide myself under a rock. We should be very careful when we judge others. Very careful we know what we do before we do it. And if we are going to do it, we must be filled with love for the person. We must see them for who they really are and who they really can become.

My great grandfather left a church when he was in his teens. He didn't talk about why for many reasons. He didn't want to talk about it and to an outsiders view he may very well have looked like an apostate. When he was older, he told his grandkids the story. The paster hit him frequently and boxed his ears. This caused a lifelong hearing deficit. He tried on a few occasions to entertain religion. He married my great grandmother and allowed her the LDS faith she loved. But he couldn't bring himself to trust religious leaders again. He went fishing instead and talked to God while alone on his boat.

Would you like to through everyone into the fire? Without judging their hearts? What do you think righteous judgement is anyway? I think you understand one truth, one position very well. I appreciate your zealousness. But I really hope you aren't on the panel when I get judged on the last and final day.

Edited February 25, 2013 by Misshalfway

[selek]

Well, I guess I know where you stand.

Supremely evil? When we lose our compassion and call people out without the inclination from the holy spirit, how different are we then?

False premise. Who here has said anything about ignoring the promptings of the Spirit? I certainly did not.

If you want to look at scripture....we don't have to look too far to see the Lord say, "He who is without sin, cast the first stone." Standing for truth is a far different thing than casting stones. Don't you think?

False premise (and false witness). Who here said anything about casting stones? I was talking about confronting and correcting falsehood.

Kindly limit your indignation and presumption to what I actually said. It'll make it that much easier to have an adult conversation.

My great grandfather left a church when he was in his teens. He didn't talk about why for many reasons. He didn't want to talk about it and to an outsiders view he may very well have looked like an apostate. When he was older, he told his grandkids the story. The paster hit him frequently and boxed his ears. This caused a lifelong hearing deficit. He tried on a few occasions to entertain religion. He married my great grandmother and allowed her the LDS faith she loved. But he couldn't bring himself to trust religious leaders again. He went fishing instead and talked to God while alone on his boat.

Thank you for the stroll down memory lane- but your grandfather isn't the topic of discussion here.

If you read my post, you will note that I have nothing but compassion and understanding for people such as your grandfather.

I was talking about an entirely different type of individual altogether- one who's actions are overtly hostile and combatative.

Would you like to through everyone into the fire? Without judging their hearts?

I would like you to address what I actually said, rather than running around tearing your hair and shrieking hysterically.

I said nothing about casting people into the fire.

I said nothing about eternal condemnation or damnation.

I talked specifically about confronting and contradicting evil and falshoods being circulated about the Church, and about remaining true to our commission and calling.

Kindly stop hyperventilating and extend me some of the consideration you insist we should show to open and avowed enemies of the Church.

Unless and until you can address my arguments- instead of inventing arguments for me- you (like the rabid apostate) are incapable of holding a rationale, reasoned conversation.

What do you think righteous judgement is anyway? I think you understand one truth, one position very well. I appreciate your zealousness. But I really hope you aren't on the panel when I get judged on the last and final day.

Thank you for the sleight about my character and integrity.

Rather than address anything I said, you've resorted to vitriol, screaming, misrepresentation, and demonization.

Rather than address my arguments, you've attacked ME, as a person.

Given the screaming and wailing and gnashing of teeth over perceived "attacks" against trolls, rabble-rousers, and apostates, I find it very revealing that this was your first and only recourse.

One might wonder who else in this forum is projecting thier sins onto others with whom they disagree...

Edited February 25, 2013 by selek

[Misshalfway]

Selek, I have no intension to fight with you. You and I clearly aren't understanding each other well today. I think I'm going to stand down.

Enjoy the thread.

[Backroads]

selek, all I'm getting from your past couple of posts is that it's wrong of us to have any sort of Christ-like love for anyone who is no longer in the Church. There is a big difference between responding to perceived enemies and simply being neighborly, which is what I took from MissHalfway's post.

[selek]

selek, all I'm getting from your past couple of posts is that it's wrong of us to have any sort of Christ-like love for anyone who is no longer in the Church.

Backroads, please review post #55 above (and the excerpts highlighted below).

In point of fact, I agree with you that "being neighborly" and Christ-like (unfeigned) love should be our default position.

For the most part, I believe that such a response IS our default.

I was very careful to draw a distinction between those who are simply questioning or are no longer in the Church.

I was very careful to draw a distinction between those who are "perceived" enemies and those who are actively, aggressively and militantly hostile in their attacks on the Church.

I was very careful to draw a distinction between making guesses about a person's motivations and judging them by their actions.

I said nothing about anyone being undeserving of Christ-like love, and I said absolutely nothing about condemning anyone.

I spoke specifically and exclusive about confronting and correcting attacks on the Church.

Once again, I was talking about actions and arguments, NOT people.

Please note the following passages from my previous posts:

I don't know of any faithful LDS (though logic insists there must be some) who have a problem with someone who simply falls away in disbelief or inactivity and moves on to what they perceive as greener pastures.

Where we have a problem is the militant agitator, the bomb-throwing instigator, and the in-your-face Pharisee who is not content to leave the Church, but who insists on justifying his decision by trying to destroy the testimony of others.

By definition, there are two categories being addressed here: those who are no longer LDS (for whatever reason) and those who are hostile and aggressive in attacking the Church.

Two different groups, two different approaches.

We, as Latter-day Saints, are commanded to comfort those that mourn and weep with those who are afflicted. While we (as with all men) can do better, in general we do pretty well. We do not seek out people to condemn, but offer compassion, love, and welcome to those who are lost and searching.

We do very well in being patient, long-suffering, understanding, and forgiving to those who need or desire these things.

On the other hand, we are nowhere, and in no wise commanded to harbor or encourage those who would destroy the faith. In point of fact, we are told NOT to tolerate such individuals in our midst as much for fear of their damnation as our own.

Again- two different groups, two different approaches.

There is a big difference between responding to perceived enemies and simply being neighborly, which is what I took from MissHalfway's post.

I would agree- except that MissHalfway doubled down on her position- and made a number of false accusations.

Note the difference between your post and hers.

You opened with "what I'm getting from your posts".

She opened with a variation of "you're a judgemental pig for daring to disagree."

All of her posts in this thread today are thinly veiled accusations. Her argument is that any resistance to those who would attack the Church is somehow un-Christ-like and that those who would presume to confront falsehood and ideologically motivated attacks on the Church are somehow less purely and perfectly Christian than she is.

That is, at best, a false dichotomy.

We are commanded to be a people of patience, long-suffering, compassion and unfeigned- that is as much a part of our commission as is the Sacrament and the Temple covenants.

We are also commanded to confront evil in all its forms, and to defend and proclaim the truth.

Miss Halfway's approach would emphasize the former goal over the latter.

I, on the other hand, believe that both approaches can and must be a part of the Latter-day Saint ministry.

[ploomf]

It's interesting in scripture how often we are told to pray for our enemies and to respond to hate with love. Just a cursory reading of the bible we have...

Matthew 43-47 "43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?"

Proverbs 25:21 If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; if he is thirsty, give him water to drink.

Romans 12:14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.

Luke 6:27 "But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,

Proverbs 19:11 A man's wisdom gives him patience; it is to his glory to overlook an offense.

We are also told in scripture that a soft word turns away wrath but a harsh word stirs up anger. There is this forum I read online that has a Franciscan religious brother who posts a lot and I remember a story he told, he once sat next to a man on a bus and when the man saw his habit he asked him if he was Catholic, the brother responded that he was and the man just went into this huge rant about Catholicism and how evil it was and all the horrible things it did. The brother waited until the man was done speaking and then just asked him "I'm sorry I seem to have offended you, would you like to talk about it?" For the rest of the bus ride the brother and this man had a conversation, it turns out several this young man had several horrible experiences in the Catholic Church and just talking with someone about them was a huge help. The brother and this man kept in touch and the young man eventually started going back to mass.

I'm not saying every ex-Mormon is going to be brought back into the church but if you respond with love instead of anger to them you might soften some attitudes.

[selek]

Ploomf,

I agree with you- but you have shifted the goalposts.

You are now talking about methods and tactics, rather than goals.

You have conceded what Miss Halfway would not- that it is sometime appropriate to confront and correct those who would attack and defame the Church.

It is also important to note that each of your statements talks about dealing with people rather than arguments.

I agree with you- we should try to approach all people prayerfully, as prompted by the Spirit, and with compassion and love unfeigned.

But such an approach does not for a moment require us to dilute the truth or compromise principle in the name of amity.

We are Latter-day Saints- called and commissioned by Christ to proclaim his Gospel and proclaim his eternal law. We have neither the right nor the authority to "soften" the truth or to compromise with iniquity in order to achieve a kumbaya moment with the natural man.

The Gospel of Christ is not a negotiation in which both sides give a little or compromise in order to achieve a consensus.

It is an ultimatum- an eternal, inescapable truth: come unto Christ on his terms or be damned (in the Scriptural sense of the word).

Edited February 25, 2013 by selek

[Misshalfway]

If I misunderstood you, Selek, or failed to consider the whole of your points, I apologize. In your clarification to Backroads, I think I understand better what you were trying to say.

I'm afraid I found your post attacking, sarcastic, and intense.

In future, I respond best when people don't use terminology like "bull-pucky", "biblically illiterate", "supremely evil", and the like. Nor did I care for your sarcasm and condescension.

I appreciate disagreement if it's done with respect and tact. I shared my experience with my grandfather. It was a tender one. You disrespected that. And I did call you out a bit. But I think you are exaggerating to say the least.

I have many faults. One of them is arguing these threads. I'm not that good at it. I never do well with specialized arguments and supersonic logic! I'm afraid I either slept or flirted through debate class. I'd rather share some ideas, voice a little sass, and have a good laugh.

Responses like yours....they are tough to swallow. Sorry. Maybe you think I'm saying ...what was it "You judgmental pig for daring to disagree." What I'm really saying is find a different way of disagreeing or I might have to do some kung fu on you.

[Guest gopecon]

Some of the early apostates in the Church wound up repenting and returning to the fold. W.W. Phelps for one caused great harm to the Prophet and others when he left and became a temporary enemy. Joseph and the Saints were happy to let him back into the fold AFTER he repented. People who became enemies to the Church were not allowed back without repentance. I think this is where the misunderstandings are happening on this thread. An "ex" Mormon CAN be anyone who has stopped going to Church for whatever reason, but the people who choose to identify them selves as such, and join groups of other ex-Mormons are not your average less active person who can't get up on Sunday mornings, or doesn't like sitting there for 3 hours.

Should we serve them and love them in our day-to-day interactions? Of course we should. But when the topic is the Church/Gospel and they are hostile, we have no need to let them profane that which we hold sacred.

[selek]

If I misunderstood you, Selek, or failed to consider the whole of your points, I apologize. In your clarification to Backroads, I think I understand better what you were trying to say.

Thank you. If I have misunderstood you, I too apologize, and would be interested in what you were actually trying to communicate.

I'm afraid I found your post attacking, sarcastic, and intense.

You wouldn't be the first. Of all of those characterizations, I strive for only the last.

In future, I respond best when people don't use terminology like "bull-pucky", "biblically illiterate", "supremely evil", and the like. Nor did I care for your sarcasm and condescension.

Noted, and likewise.

I appreciate disagreement if it's done with respect and tact. I shared my experience with my grandfather. It was a tender one. You disrespected that. And I did call you out a bit. But I think you are exaggerating to say the least.

With respect, I did not disrespect your experience with your grandfather- I simply found it to be a nonsequitor.

I'd rather share some ideas, voice a little sass, and have a good laugh.

Believe it or not, I feel the same way.

Responses like yours....they are tough to swallow. Sorry. Maybe you think I'm saying ...what was it "You judgmental pig for daring to disagree." What I'm really saying is find a different way of disagreeing or I might have to do some kung fu on you.

MODS!!!!! SHE THREATENED ME WITH PHYSICAL VIOLENCE!!!!! AAUUGH!!! AAUUGGH!! PANIC SCREAM WHIMPER SNARL!!!!!

As I've said in other threads, if I am to be damned, it will be for who and what I am.

I believe it is better to be honest and straightforward about what I believe than to try and hide my light (dim bulb though it may be) under a bushel.

Your mileage may vary, but we'll just have to agree to disagree.

That having been said, I'll try to be a little less reflexively abrasive to what I perceive as criticisms for daring to defend the truth as I see it.

[selek]

Thank you gopecon, for capturing the idea so concisely.

[prisonchaplain]

I have a particular individual in mind, whom I would consider apostate from orthodox Christianity (he became 'liberal,' no longer believing in a literal devil, demons, or hell, and he now finds it easier to debate on the side of atheists than joining with evangelicals). Whenever I see him talk in public I just feel sad. Maybe I should get angry, but when I look at him, see his gestures and his demeanor, it's just so empty.

[Windseeker]

I have a particular individual in mind, whom I would consider apostate from orthodox Christianity (he became 'liberal,' no longer believing in a literal devil, demons, or hell, and he now finds it easier to debate on the side of atheists than joining with evangelicals). Whenever I see him talk in public I just feel sad. Maybe I should get angry, but when I look at him, see his gestures and his demeanor, it's just so empty.

I'm not a big fan of Obama either

[Bini]

I'm not a big fan of Obama either

Can we stay on topic, please.

[Windseeker]

Can we stay on topic, please.

Yes'm

[Bini]

Yes'm

Carry on.

[BenRaines]

I don't use Ex-Mormon to describe anyone. Former Mormon or Someone who has left the church.

People label themselves as ex-Mormons but I don't

Ben Raines

[Tough Grits]

...when the topic is the Church/Gospel and they are hostile, we have no need to let them profane that which we hold sacred.

I am trying really hard to understand the back-and-forth. Once again, I get lost as soon as it gets "heated" (in my opinion).

So, let me step back and ask this question--If somebody is "profaning" the church how would you stop it?

I refuse to argue with somebody who is hostile...so if somebody is profaning the Church with hostility, then why would I engage that person? Well, I wouldn't, but how (or why) would somebody else do it?

If somebody set fire to a Bible or Book of Mormon in front of me, I would probably walk away...quickly. I would not engage them. That kind of person (in my unprofessional opinion) is dangerous.

I know in my heart that a Bible or Book of Mormon is only sacred to those who value it. To anybody else, it is just a book.

If somebody is bashing the Church in a hostile manner, then are they even going to take a breath long enough for me to even offer correction? I am going to say probably not--though making such a guess without exactly knowing the situation or the person or the reason for their hostility to begin with makes it hard to even try to figure out what my own response would be--much less theirs.

Not only that, but just like the scriptures or the garments or anything else that members hold sacred, our beliefs are only sacred to us, because we have placed value on it.

When I was an atheist I did not hold anything sacred that a Catholic, or Mormon, or Baptist, or Buddist, or Wiccan held sacred.

We don't need to "cast pearls before swine". If you actually think about that phrase...would a pig (or any other animal) value a pearl? No. Animals mostly value what they can eat or drink.

A person who is hostile to the Church already holds no value to what we believe or say. We can choose to be offended, but it isn't going to change the fact that our words will fall on the deaf ears of somebody already hostile or angry.

I am sincerely trying to understand what is even being argued on this thread.

Don't bash me (please ) just explain to me what you would do, and why you think that is different than what I would do. ~TG

Edited February 26, 2013 by Tough Grits
Serious spelling errors...

[prisonchaplain]

To illustrate TG's point, if someone curses by using Jesus' name profanely, or by using the title God followed by a curse, what happens when we say, "Excuse me. I'm a Christian, and I am offended by your curse. Would you mind not talking that way in front of me?"

Yeah...they generally do not consider sacred that which we do. Worse, they will be enraged that we have not held sacred their right to profane our religion.

[Guest gopecon]

TG - If someone says something to my face in an attempt to pick a fight or instigate something, then I should walk away, or ignore it. That falls into a "turn the other cheek" situation. However if I am in a more public situation (internet forum, meeting, group of people, etc.) where the person's negative testimony could influence others, then I believe there is a duty to speak out for people who know the truth.