After constantly blogging on the fraud of Mormonism, I decided to step back and be as objective as possible and put together a post on the positive changes I have seen in the LDS church recently. See https://postmormon.blogspot.com/2017/12/a-post-mormon-defends-lds-church-part-1.html

Wow!

From your blog:

"The 'skin of blackness' [in the Book of Mormon].... was not a physical description. .... skin color as has been part of the more modern U.S. culture. Nephite prejudices were developed on distinctions more common to the ancient world and used reasons other than pigmentation."

"This is good news for LDS members who have hated racism yet struggled with the idea that African Americans and Native Americans were allegedly cursed with dark skin. They now have doctrinal support to reject these ideas. I consider this a a huge step in the right direction."


You're saying the above is a positive step... May I ask in what direction?? Do you mean rejection of prior doctrine makes the church a better place in which to repose one's trust? I'm not seeing that.

Does the church even believe in a pre-existence anymore, and if it does, how does the current leadership and multi-generational mormon account for why they got to be mormons, when 7.5 billion of their brothers and sisters didn't? There's really no mormonism without a harsh ghawd judging his spirit kids and doling out punishments. Too bad there was no pre-existence Jesus to take on all those pre-existence sins so that ALL ghawds children could have been born in Orem.

To answer your question: It is a positive step in the direction of Mormons no longer holding racist ideas. Wouldn't you agree that is a positive direction (less racism or no racism)?

Right now there is some Mormon who still thinks blacks are cursed with dark skin and the Native Americans are cursed with dark skin. The changes I listed in my blog post show how LDS members who hate racism now have some resources to fight the racism. When I was Mormon and heard these racist teachings there were no resources to combat them "within the church itself." For the 1978 revelation did not discount the seed of cain dogma, but the new essay Race and Priesthood does reject the seed of cain dogma. So practically speaking, this is a positive direction is all I am saying. I would like them to do more of course, like apologize for past racism and remove the racist sounding verses from the Book of Mormon altogether would be better than just reinterpreting them as many LDS apologists are now doing. Oh, and admitting the BoM is fiction would be nice too.

You asked, "Do you mean rejection of prior doctrine makes the church a better place in which to repose one's trust? I'm not seeing that." I think you are reading into my post things I don't mean. I never said the LDS church is now trustworthy; read through my blog and you will see that is not the case. I actually agree with you that they still have not gained my trust, at all. I am merely pointing out some positive changes.

Regarding your point on the preexistence, I agree with you. When I was a teenager I recall a Mormon telling me that I was literally born white and LDS because I was valiant in the preexistence. While that teaching may be less taught today (due to the resources I mentioned) you are right that the preexistence idea does imply there is a reason some are born Mormon and some not.

I may have been a bit hidebound and touchy...

I'm tribe of Manasseh, which the patriarch had no problem discerning given my Hispanic name and my skin color, so it was nice that I joined, but too bad I wasn't valiant enough to be born White...

I do have a problem with the notion that there are aspects of the church that we can admire. I simply don't want to go there... Sure, lots of good people in the church, and an old guy like me can call up a list of the fine people who helped guide me in my youth, but looking for good in the church is as useful as looking for benefits in drowning.

There's just so much WRONG with the church! Why on earth keep ties to it or try to admire it?

I always pictured you as the Cheech Marin type. You got some kind of problem with Mormon tradition? You brown people are always getting in the way. As a token of our appreciation, please accept this sack of flour. Don’t mind the glass shards.

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm tribe of Manasseh, which the patriarch had no
> problem discerning given my Hispanic name and my
> skin color, so it was nice that I joined, but too
> bad I wasn't valiant enough to be born White...
>
> I do have a problem with the notion that there are
> aspects of the church that we can admire. I
> simply don't want to go there... Sure, lots of
> good people in the church, and an old guy like me
> can call up a list of the fine people who helped
> guide me in my youth, but looking for good in the
> church is as useful as looking for benefits in
> drowning.
>
> There's just so much WRONG with the church! Why
> on earth keep ties to it or try to admire it?


........EXACTLY !!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2L9pf3DGFNM

I totally agree with you that the church is far from admirable. It's unforgivable what the Mormon Church made you feel the way you did with their preexistence dogma bullshit. I think a lot of the changes are due to them afraid of losing members so they have not truly "repented." I mean part of me certainly feels like saying to the LDS church:

"So now you want me to see these recent changes and pat you guys on the back and ignore the past and current problems as you smile and say, 'Come back to us.' After you sent me on a mission to Brazil in 1995 and I was told by the leaders like McConkie that dark skin is a curse. And these racist ideas were reinforced by my missionary companions, which just made it worse. So I leave my mission in Brazil because my conscience can't take giving the wonderful people of Brazil a doctrine like that. So I come home and I am shamed for having doubts that blacks are cursed with dark skin. And now after the least ten or so years as an exmormon (having resigned), and finding my way philosophically and making a new life. Now you finally admit that your racist policy of 100+ years, was ooopsie, a mistake and it's all Brigham Young's fault?! Now you say let it go. I say 'F*ck you!"

I have zero ties to Mormonism as well, except some Mormon family members. I guess my post was to be "objective" in my mind, after most of my blog is VERY critical of the church. I had also ran into an old LDS friend I hadn't seen in years, and that may have also sparked in me a desire to be fair, at least in my mind.

Like you said there is a lot of WRONG in the church, see my blog post below for a short list:

http://postmormon.blogspot.com/2012/07/short-list-of-harm-caused-by-mormonism.html

Shrinking membership would be positive.

The way I see it is the Mormons traded one form of overt bigotry and racism from skin color to sexual orientation.

It isn't politically correct for the conservative Christian right to be racist in Mormonism. It swung over to homophobia to have some other "sin" to hate on.

There was a time it was a sin ie, curse, to be born with a dark complexion - racism was a holdover the Mormons weren't going to let go of until its hand was forced in the late 1970's.

Racism still exists in the church. White Anglo Saxons predominate church headquarters, and men at the top - all heterosexual businessmen who are homophobic.

To deny children and their families access to church resources based on the parents sexual orientation is a worse ban than that of the priesthood ban for blacks before 1978.

Mormonism is regressive and oppressive. The more times change the more repressive it seems in contrast to the changing cultural norms of society.

A church steeped in fear and bigotry is not a Christ centered organization.

I still have many friends and family relatives in the church. It feels like I walk a fine line with them because out of respect for each others beliefs we don't attack each other. Although I am disgusted with the cult's teachings and how estranged it has made our family through the years. When it preaches "families are forever," while in practice it is divisive and destructive.

It is one thing to admit one's past mistakes and change. It is quite another, in my opinion, to try to deny that the past mistakes ever happened.

There is no question that the church historically taught that "skin of blackness" was very literal, and that the church was overtly racist.

Renouncing racism is good. Lying about past sins is just another sin.

Postmormon: You said: The changes I listed in my blog post show how LDS members who hate racism now have some resources to fight the racism.

How can anyone defend a lie? The fact is the BOM makes it specific to SKIN COLOR.

The correct answer would be...I encourage the LDS church to delete all of the racist comments in the BOM if they want to start the conversation on racism.

Pista is SPOT ON---

Oregon, I basically said what you said/suggested in my comment above at 8:20 p.m. Dec.31

Sorry, I don't buy the New & Improved Church. You say that "LDS members who hate racism now have some resources to fight the racism." The principal "resource" I see is FAIR, which does not even claim to speak for the church. [FAIR: "Any opinions expressed, implied, or included in or with the goods and services offered by FairMormon are solely those of FairMormon and not those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."]

Has this "spiritual" explanation of the "Lamanite curse" been endorsed or repeated by any church authority, anywhere, anytime? And just how does this "spiritual" interpretation square with this BOM passage:

3 Nephi 2:15
"And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites."

This explicitly refers to SKIN COLOR, despite what any "progressive mormon" or apologist might say. No, the literal skin curse is hard-wired into the doctrine, try as they may to rationalize and spin it. Attempts to do so are merely lame-ass excuses that go against the canonized scriptural teachings.

Anonymous Muser, I agree that they are lame excuses when the obvious plain reading is racist. You're also right that it's only the apologists, however the Mormon leadership has endorsed changing the Book of Mormon subheadings and some apologists have been giving their reinterpretation of the book of mormon inside the Mormon church at the pulpit (as mentioned in my blog post). I mention this only for its practical value in causing less harm then they used to. But I completely agree that the harm is still there because the plain and obvious reading is racist and no excuses or rationalizations can change the obvious. Yet if the reinterpretation by apologists did become the norm that would be good/better, I think you'd agree. And as I wrote above, they should just Remove the racist passages from The Book of Mormon altogether if they really wanted to do the moral thing. But that's not going to happen and I think they are too cowardly to endorse the apologists' reinterpretation; so I think they are simply leaning on the church essay Race and the Priesthood to cover not just blacks and the priesthood but also the Book of Mormon dark skin cursing passages. For, to my knowledge no LDS leader has talked anywhere that dark skin is a curse ever since the race essay was published.

I don't recall a GA saying that dark skin is a curse since 1978 when OD-2 was released – long before the race essay.

I can't bring myself to give the church props for outsourcing its turd-polishing duties. That's essentially all they're doing by relying on FAIR.

Just my 2¢, but what bothers me (and others, I'll bet) is your use of the word "defends" in the blog entry title. It sounds like Donut Dan. Perhaps you decided on that phrasing to make it less threatening to TBMs; still, I might consider changing it to something like "A Post-Mormon Assesses the Church's Attempts to Reinvent Itself (or …to Modernize Itself, or …to Reinterpret Doctrine)." […to put new wine into old bottles; didn't some guy named Jesus say something about that?] "Defending" the church isn't a good road to walk.

Finally, it's a short step from "we don't teach that any more" to "we never taught that, you just misunderstood." That's what FAIR is trying to do.

Anonymous Muser,

I have been reading An Atheist Defends Religion, so I think that is where the blog title came from. I think you are right about not using the word defend. I think if anything I was defending Mormons themselves, Mormons who you’d consider good people but for whatever reason are stuck in Mormonism. I was defending them. I will change the title shortly because I am NOT a defender of Mormonism.

Regarding your comment, “I don't recall a GA saying that dark skin is a curse since 1978 when OD-2 was released – long before the race essay.” Well, LDS leaders did in fact speak of skin curses after the OD-2. Scroll down to where I discuss Bruce R. McConkie where he says in his August 1978 talk, All Are Alike unto God at https://postmormon.blogspot.com/2012/03/covering-up-seed-of-cain-doctrine-in.html

In that post I write:

Notice that this statement [by McConkie in All are Alike to God] in context refers to the teaching that blacks would “not receive the priesthood in mortality”; McConkie doesn’t say he was wrong about blacks being the seed of Cain. How could they erase it anyway when the First Presidency in the 1949 statement quoted Brigham Young’s saying blacks are the seed of Cain; and the 1951 statement by the First Presidency says that blacks "came to earth through the loins of Cain because of [their] failure to achieve other stature in the spirit world." The fact is, that even though the speech All Are Alike unto God is widely displayed by LDS apologists to argue the doctrine of the seed of Cain is no longer doctrine; it is clear from the words below from the same sermon by McConkie that he meant that we are to ignore him and Brigham Young when they said blacks wouldn’t receive the priesthood in mortality. For McConkie explains the process of the leaders of the church "receiving" the 1978 revelation to allow blacks the priesthood, by still referring to them as the seed of Cain, only now the “curse” has been lifted but they are still the seed of Cain. As Bruce R. McConkie himself puts it in the same sermon (words in italics for emphasis):

The President restated the problem involved, reminded us of our prior discussions, and said he had spent many days alone in this upper room pleading with the Lord for an answer to our prayers. He said that if the answer was to continue our present course of denying the priesthood to the seed of Cain, as the Lord had theretofore directed, he was prepared to defend that decision to the death. But, he said, if the long-sought day had come in which the curse of the past was to be removed, he thought we might prevail upon the Lord to so indicate. He expressed the hope that we might receive a clear answer one way or the other so the matter might be laid to rest … [then after the revelation is allegedly received McConkie states] The ancient curse is no more. The seed of Cain and Ham and Canaan and Egyptus and Pharaoh (Abr. 1:20-27; Moses 5:16-41; 7:8, 22) ... now have power to rise up and bless Abraham as their father. All these, Gentile in lineage, may now come and inherit by adoption all the blessings of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ... All these may now be numbered with those in the one fold of the one shepherd who is Lord of all.” (Personal Testimony of Revelation on Priesthood by Elder Bruce R. McConkie of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Priesthood [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1981], pp. 126-37).

When I tried to find the article online I noticed that BYU removed McConkies remarks on the seed of Cain, see https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie_alike-unto-god-2/ A quick Google search shows that the LDS church has been editing McConkie’s speech and removing all the mention of the seed of Cain.

So as you can see the doctrine that blacks are the seed of Cain was still in force after 1978 and taught by some LDS leaders. So the Race and the Priesthood essay can be considered a change in doctrine that the 1978 policy change did not cover!

"New and Improved" logically means what came before must not have been indicative of "The One True Church", doesn't it?

Then again, The One True Church has been evolving in its truth since 1830, hasn't it - seems like this Heavenly Father Fellow is constantly changing his mind - who knows on what subject he'll change his mind about next...

Doesn't seem exactly "faith promoting"

Around these parts, we shoot rattlesnakes.

Positive side?

Let's see. It's clearly not the outside. I've been inside and so I KNOW it's not that side either. So what can it be?

It doesn't have any other sides?

outside, inside, NEITHER side really being a good side hmmmmm heard commentary like that some place at one time can't remember where .......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mD--lHALcm0&t=90

LD$ Inc. is slightly less racist.
Yup. That's positive.

Putting a nice frosting on a rotten moldy cake and thinking that changes something? Waste of icing and sprinkles--nothing more.

Backtracking and progress are two different things. You need to up your game if you want to be SpinMaster for the Mormon image.

Families are being split right and left, gay kids are being kicked out or killing themselves, and racism and misogyny are alive and well in the Mormon church. They are covering up, not coming clean. They are depending on the passage of time and the fading of memory rather than being forthright. That is not "praiseworthy or of good report," let me tell you.

Besides the lipstick you are slathering on this pig, you better try some pancake make-up, tons of mascara, and a really rosy blush.

I can be as "Pollyanna" as the next person, but not when it comes to the Mormon church.

Done & Done,

I don’t think putting a nice frosting on a rotten moldy cake changes something. Read through my blog and you will see that is not the case.

I agree that backtracking and progress are two different things, I make that clear in my comments in this thread. I don’’t need to up “my game” as I am not a “SpinMaster for the Mormon image.” Read through my blog and you will see why such an accusation is uncalled for. You know Mike Norton recently said a lot of positive things about the Mormon Church to be objective in his interview with Dehlin, like he still wears his CTR ring which he considers a positive thing and Mormons have good social programs, etc. Is Norton a spin master too? See http://www.mormonstories.org/mike-norton/

I too am deeply bothered by “Families are being split right and left, gay kids are being kicked out or killing themselves, and racism and misogyny are alive and well in the Mormon church.” So be my editor, what in my blog post would you change? Because I say clearly in my blog post about the gay issue for example, “Of course, the LDS church could do more, they could make the gay LDS member feel OK with acting on their same sex attraction with other consenting adults. I mean why is it anyone's business what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes? The LDS leadership could consult the scientific community and psychologists instead of relying on archaic religious tradition to handle such matters.” Here I have criticized the LDS leaders as archaic and superstitious and pointed out they reject science and have no business in people’s bedrooms. Just because my tone is not as harsh as you’d like it doesn’t mean I am on their side.

Please consider the full context of my blog and my intent with this post, which is to encourage the LDS church and members to be less racist and homophobic, rather than jumping to conclusions.

There seems to be a strong reaction to my blog title Defending the LDS church, so I did just change the title and took out the word "defends ..." Might I suggest to everyone here who has reacted as they did, that they might consider that these positive changes are a vindication
for us in the ex Mormon community. For example a while back I remember going on one of John Dehlin's message boards and pointing out how the Mormon church should be honest about the rock in the Hat act and the Seer Stone. shortly after that Daniel Peterson appeared on the PBS special The Mormons and came clean about the Seer Stone. Now I am not so arrogant as to take credit for influencing Peterson's thinking in deciding to be honest and transparent. But I do think that it was the exMormon community as a whole that pressured apologists to be more honest and public about things like the seer stone, which I think led to Mormon leadership being more transparent like they are today. Obviously the loss of memberships and the apologists probably saying "hey we need to be more transparent" that caused the changes I think. But we exMormons WON at least something! We stood for truth and changed the institution in many ways! Is that not grounds for celebration? Here is what I wrote in 2013 in one of my blog posts:

Feeling vindicated in 2013
I can't help but feel vindicated these days. When I left the church around 2001 the internet was just starting to really grow into the powerful source of information and communication that it is today. But during the time I was leaving it was a time when former Mormons were still intensely vilified by many Mormons; and some (not all) LDS apologists would often verbally attack me in emails, and the church still taught the hemispheric model of the Book of Mormon, the seed of Cain dogma, and was hiding most of the controversial doctrines, etc. All that is changing within the last ten years or so since I left. Whereas members who left Mormonism before the internet never got to see these changes, I am lucky enough to see the truth I uncovered (that has been heard all around the web by numerous authors) actually affect the LDS church and lead to more positive changes I discuss in the link below.

As a result I feel vindicated. For while I was told by members I was wrong and I was the problem, today the LDS apologists and leaders are admitting these are real problems and are actually changing the doctrines because THEY ARE IN FACT WRONG; or at least offering full disclosure more often. All the hard work and research of numerous authors has paid off. We were not wrong, we weren't the problem; Mormonism was wrong, and it was the problem all along.

... There is an obvious change in tone among many apologists; the internet and the truth is forcing them to realize that they can't smugly dismiss the members doubts and attack and blame them anymore. The truth is too powerful. You can attack the messenger but the truth of the message will plow forward.

So yes the LDS church is making positive changes because they were wrong about core doctrines, and yes I feel vindicated; and so should all the former Mormons over the years who had the courage and integrity to speak out and affect these changes. We weren't wrong, we were right. We weren't the problem, we were the catalyst to the LDS church changing many false doctrines; and in their own way admitting we were right by sympathizing more with dissidents and being more open about the controversial issues. ...
From my blog post at: http://postmormon.blogspot.com/2013/11/feeling-vindicated-in-2013.html

When TSCC ceases and desists in doing post-humous baptisms for the dead then I will be more receptive to what you are saying.

Not before.

Maybe you could make that suggestion since you seem to have a back channel of sorts?

The Mormon church will never be accepted until it comes clean from its past and present methodologies.

It will need to do a paradigm shift in its religious beliefs and practices and acknowledge its abuses of power before I will ever see it in a different light than that of a fringe cult.

Postmormon, please go elsewhere. This is Recovery from Mormonism, not Defend Mormonism.

Wow, I spend TEN YEARS writing critical blog posts on Mormonism and decide to write a blog post on some recent positive changes and make the mistake of posting it here and I am treated worse than any Mormon has treated me. Anyone who reads this thread and my entire blog will get the WHOLE picture and will see the problem with this thread's attitude toward me.

It feels like I am being treated by some fellow exMormons the way some Mormons have treated me over the years, all because I dared document some positive changes that will reduce harm. I even changed my blog title at the behest of one of you guys which I agreed with. But no matter how much reconciliation I offer I am still attacked unless I jump on the the band wagon and join the same hating on all things Mormon.

I understand that anger and hate is part of the recovery process, I went through it too, but recovery also contains acceptance and moving on. Why I am not allowed my own stage of recovery which entails seeing some of the positive in Mormonism (as well as the bad)? How is not allowing me to share my thoughts its own form of thought control?

I see a very black and white mentality here and judging a book by its cover just as I have been treated by many Mormons. Just as Mormons refuse to allow anything negative be said about the LDS church, you guys seem to not allow anything positive. Instead of getting the full picture, I get instead reactions that are emotional, a jump to conclusions (no I don't have a "back channel of sorts"), endless attacking, and not dealing with what I am actually sharing, which is just information mostly. So rest assured I will not be posting here again. That makes me sad.

I have not been on these kinds of message boards in years (and posted on a whim) and the apparent nihilism and what feels like a lack of conscience will leave me not coming back. So just as Mormons also say, I will "go elsewhere" as requested. At least here I don't have send in a resignation letter, LOL. You want to ostracize me like Mormons do, that's your right; but ask yourselves how are you acting any different than the Mormon leaders you are so angry at?

To be honest such a reaction started to make me feel rather down (perhaps that was the intent) but then I reminded myself that in life there are people on the fringes and then there are those in the middle. I decided to tell myself that is just people in a lot of emotional pain and is just the fringe exMormons. I decided to tell myself that I still have faith in the moderate exMormon who would never have been so snarky, sarcastic, quick to judge, and ostracizing. I remember posting my exit story on a Mormon apologist board years ago and being treated in a similar manner as certain fringe devout-Mormons did not want to even hear my story of leaving Mormonism. It seems that there are fringe elements in the Mormon and exMormon community. I guess this has been a learning lesson.

I am sure after I post this I will get more negativity. As of right now this feels like a gang/mob mentality and endless anger, jumping to conclusions, false accusations, mind reading, and mountains of sarcasm. As Jesus said in the Bible, forgive them Father for they know not what they do. You guys don't get you are attacking one of your own. I will try to practice the Jesus' method and forgive as I leave this message board feeling how I did when Mormons would often gang up and attack me when I tried to tell the truth about Mormonism, which I've dealt with here and there for the last ten years in person and on my blog. I will remind myself how I felt when I was once so angry and hurt by Mormonism.

The sad irony is how this behavior is just so contradictory, for attacking and ostracizing fellow exMormons does not help the cause: which I thought was to reduce harm in the world and spread Truth. Apparently venting anger and knee jerk attacking feels better. I guess my recovery process is not as important as your own.

Peace

Probably the only blog post of yours that would have ruffled feathers here and THAT'S the one you picked to share...

Frankly, I hated it.

You could find positive attributes in dog vomit. That’s great, but most of us here have written off the church. The Q15 don’t want to change and regularly indicate that they won’t change. It takes monumental pressure to make them even budge. They are the most stiff necked guys you’ll ever know of. So, any positive changes you see didn’t come from the heart.

I didn’t write them off lightly. I figured out they won’t change because they can’t change. TSCC can’t be reformed by nature of the way it’s organized. It’s a self-perpetuating closed system.

any positive changes are a step in the right direction.... HOWEVER it is a completely LOST CAUSE because LD$ inc and its creepy vile predatory MORmONISM will NEVER be the net positive for humanity, that they claim to be in spades, NOT EVEN CLOSE !!!!!!

There are many lurkers here we aren't all posting as ex-Mormons. So your commentary may have the desired effect you wish it to on some here only you may never know.

Here you will mostly find what is inherently wrong about Mormonism, not what's right about it.

If you're met with resistance understand the audience you're posting to.

A person can't really be neutral as an ex-Mormon in recovery. By recovery it isn't about getting over it to the degree it won't matter anymore someday.

It will always matter to an ex-Mormon having been brainwashed and our families still tied to the religious cult that will never be free from it.

For the positives you want to believe are happening; I don't see progress when gays and their children are banned from church membership, and the bigotry that goes with that.

Mormonism may have to change if it wants to survive in the 21st century. So far all it's been doing is going in reverse instead of forward to adapt to a changing society. It can't keep up with progress or the changing times.

Okay, I read your blog.

You’re putting ketchup on a shit sandwich.

excellent way to put it !!!!

I admit I made a mistake, which is part of being human (remember the Mormons demand perfection not us I would hope). I did not fully understand the audience of this message board, and that is on me, yes. I had only posted on postmormon.org here and there throughout the years but saw that it was not working (the site is down). The tone as postmormon.org was different than it here which I get now. I did not know my audience; that's on me. I just wished I was treated more humanely and asked more questions before being attacked and put into a "box" that did not fit me. But then again this is a site I can see now that is for those with a particular mindset after being harmed by Mormonism and such an audience has a right to the stage of the recovery process they are on.

I am less dissappointed after these recent posts, as it shows some fair-mindedness and compassion among the crowd. I was feeling mob attacked and no one feeling any desire to offer a hand of exMo fellowship among the mob of angry voices. But now finally some reasonable posters have chimed in, thanks for that.

I am not above reproach and can make stupid choices like any human. I agree with everything said about the LDS leadership, just read my entire blog and see my future posts to see. In fact, in future posts on my blog I will be speaking a lot about the LDS leadership and why its because of them, and not just the fraud of Mormonism, that I resigned. In fact, I just posted my resignation letter for anyone interested: http://postmormon.blogspot.com/2018/01/my-my-resignation-letter-back-in-2004.html

So as of right now I will let bygones be bygones (repent, as in "change paths" and forgive) and interpret "go elsewhere" as "don't post what is not welcome here" which I can respect. Thus, from now on I will only post what is appropriate for this audience on this board.

Peace

@PostMormon, its a tough crowd with a mob mentality.

That's not really the best summary, better put: it's a tough crowd and you should know your audience. Mobs can flare up but overall the lurkers and posters in total are good and decent people on this board. They deserve the right to have their say. Other than that I refer you to my last post.

In peace

FWIW, I’ll say that I don’t think trying to find what is positive about Mormonism is always an exercise in futility. To me, I don’t find it a healthy part of the recovery process to think I was part of something 100% bad and lacking in any redeeming qualities. And I don't think it's 100% bad (but more bad than good). So I’m not averse to this. I’m not saying I applaud you, but I hope that relieves you a little.

Defending?

Offending.

Thanks for your thoughtful and balanced words nuttinfornow. It did offer some relief.

You are evidence (as well as others on this board) that most exmormons are good, fair-minded, and forgiving people.