I've been reading your posts here over the years, and I have a couple of questions.

When you published your book a couple of years ago (The Passion of Raptor Jesus ...), you said that it was mainly therapeutic and part of your recovery process from Mormonism, but you also wanted it to be the start of being able to wean yourself away financially from your employer (whom you did not like).

Now that you're finishing another book, tell me: Are these the only two books you've written?

If it's not getting too personal, how did (or does) the "Passion" book work out? Did it enable you to gain some financial freedom? I've seen stories in the news that some people end up putting out dozens of e-books before they start receiving any significant financial returns.

This next book is the second one I have written.

It doesn't surprise me that it takes dozens of books for people to make any kind of return - the average book sells about 100 copies and that's it.

While the Passion has sold more than that - I am not in a position to be financially secure from that alone.

My hope is of course to write something that enough people will like that I CAN write for a living.

However, I don't write with an intention to try to guess the market. I write for me.

I had enough saved up, that when I got really sick and needed to go back home - I could quit and be ok for a little while.

The next book will be put out in about a month or so - and I'll need to do something else for work.

I will always write. But writing only makes a few people financially able to write for a living. (Some of whom deserve it, and some who I don't feel deserve it.)

But that's the marketplace.

I hope that helps answer your questions.

We've disagreed on a few points, RaptorJesus, but I concur completely with your literary philosophy. One must write because the story must come out. I'm working on a screenplay that will have LDS themes and issues, and wonder if the marketplace could possibly, um, "entertain" such a project. But considering the success of "Book of Mormon," "Big Love," and other activities, I'm hopeful. Optimistic, even.

This gives me an opportunity to explain myself a bit. Growing up in Christian Science, it was learning about LDS that helped me understand how cults work--and how cultic Christian Science is.

My story will be kind to Mormons, but quite unsympathetic to Mormonism as a doctrine and as an institution. I learned, early, that cults typically have secret or otherwise hidden teachings that newcomers (investigators) and many members know little or nothing about. You, and many others on this board, have been very helpful to me in getting a several matters correct. As my protagonist discovers obscure teachings, disenchantment (pun intended) sets in.

I know my born-again Christianity rubs some people the wrong way here, but everybody has been quite civil and respectful even when engaged in vigorous debate.

That's interesting that you were brought up in Christian Science. Have you written out your bio or a post giving your back story? I'd like to read that.

You said, "I know my born-again Christianity rubs some people the wrong way here..."

It's not the BAC in you that people react to, necessarily, but how you roll with it here. It's OK to talk about our own experiences and beliefs but not to tell others what they should do or believe. Some really over-the-top posts at times call everyone to repentence or "preach the word" in obnoxious ways. That is what RfMers don't like and what Admin disallows here.

It's interesting that you say you could see from Mormonism how cults work and that showed you that CS is a cult. It's fascinating how we can see what's wrong in the belief systems of others but not so easily in our own. I was a JW at one time (joined, not born in) and I have come to see more than I realized before that Mormonism and the WatchTower Society (JWs) have a lot in common, including their founders' actions and reputations and the origin of each group as well as their doctrines and practices. For instance, they both reject the doctrine of the Trinity, setting them apart from the larger body of mainstream Christians (and a primary reason why they are considered "not Christians" as there is a core set of beliefs, they believe, that one must subscribe to in order to be considered "Christian", in my experience and observation).

I have long avoided using the 'c' word for both groups, partly due to not wanting to jump on the bandwagon until I firmly felt that this was a correct and unavoidable (although derogatory, imho) term to described them and partly due to not wanting to admit that I joined a cultish group, not once but twice, and with the second group, Mormonism, I really should have known better, through knowledge I had and from experience (JWs). But that's another story.

Many here have found the same as you, that looking at other groups helped them to see their own group with more insight.

It is perhaps why these groups strongly press their adherents to stay cloistered, to read only their own material, to associate only with their own fellow believers (the JWs more insistent than the Mormons on this score, in my experience).

That is why knowledge is power and we should not deny ourselves all the information that is available. If our faith cannot withstand scrutiny, what good is it I ask.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/02/2013 05:05PM by Nightingale.