Here's a wonderful little page on ExMormons: http://whymormonism.org/416/exmormon. The presentation tries very hard to sound fair-minded, but the farther you go into it, the nastier it gets until at the end:

"Unfortunately, because Christ leads the Church, it is difficult to abandon the Church without turning against it. Joseph Smith, founder and first prophet of the restored Church, said, 'There is a superior intelligence bestowed upon such as obey the Gospel with full purpose of heart, which, if sinned against, the apostate is left naked and destitute of the Spirit of God, and he is, in truth, nigh unto cursing, and his end is to be burned. When once that light which was in them is taken from them they become as much darkened as they were previously enlightened, and then, no marvel, if all their power should be enlisted against the truth, and they, Judas-like, seek the destruction of those who were their greatest benefactors' (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, p 321). Because of this, ExMormons often become anti-Mormon. In their rebellion, they seek to damage the Church and justify themselves. Anti-Mormons often lie about the Church and its doctrines and practices. In Joseph Smith’s day, ExMormons who lied about the Church, its policies and doctrines, brought serious persecution upon the members of the Church, resulting in loss of life and property. As the Prophet said, these were the ones who had received the most light and then turned against it."

What struck me here was the easy readiness to accuse any ExMormon who has problems with the church of turning to lying. Any criticism of the church is then just brushed off as a lie. How convenient! As ridiculous as that is here we have the typical Mormon defense thrown up against any unhappy truth the ExMormon might state.

Also, framing someone's rejection of the church as "rebellion" simply assumes something odd: I don't rebel against a lie. I simply reject it and call attention to it, seeking the truth. Calling attention to a lie or a deception or acts of coercion is not necessarily an act of "rebellion." Calling someone's act of pointing to the truth as some act of "rebellion" makes the act seem suspect from the start and gives more substance and legitimacy to the agent of the lie than is deserved.

The whole page is, I think, an unrivaled example of saccharine, pretended tolerance and understanding lined with a viscious stupidity that undermines anyone who speaks out against it.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 12/03/2011 06:50PM by derrida.

..."Yeah, exmormons have some valid reasons for leaving the Church?" No, of course they're going to be dismissive.

The point isn't that, "Wow, look! Mormons are dismissive of Exmos. Gosh what a surprise!" The point is how its done in this piece. The piece attempts a slickness and does a direct address on the topic of Exmormons. We read all the time on the board anecdotal evidence about the different ways the church dismisses "apostates." We live it many of us.

I am nonplussed daily, as many of us are, at the double-binds in stated blandly in this piece: "Oh, you don't believe anymore. That means you've lost the light of Christ and therefore can't tell truth from lies. You're a natural liar now. You better come back to the fold so that you can know what's true again. Otherwise you'll just be lost gnashing your teeth forever in spiritual darkness." How do you argue with someone who says anything you say is a lie?

There's no effort at dialogue even though the piece tries to be reasonable and sound ecumenical. They want to sound like some progressive United Methodist ministry, as some regular, respectable religion, but they have this viscious $4!t history and tradition of psychological control and abuse that they have to carry around, this dark side of mental domination and coercion: "Contrary to rumor, free agency is the central principle of God’s plan for us, and there is no brainwashing or coercion in the Church, although social norms and family expectations do create some pressure to conform, as in any culture, society, or religion." They treat as "rumor" the sorts of brainwashing and indoctrination and fear based reasoning they teach every Sunday. The piece equates Mormon "social norms and family expectations" with the conforming pressures of "any culture, society, or religion." It's outrageous, painful, and amazing that they either don't see it or won't cop to it. And the church's official articulation of these issues doesn't get more refined than this.

I think what I take away from this is: lying for the lord against apostates is fully justified in order to keep the sheeple from being deceived by those filled with darkness.

derrida Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> How do you argue with someone who says
> anything you say is a lie?

you say "That's right, everything I say is a lie, in fact I am lying right now"

Heh, amusing. Like the Cretan liar paradox. "All Cretans lie. I am a Cretan." Welcome to the wonderful world of vicious circles.

Talk about mind-bending logic loops. The whole Mormon belief system is built on a foundation of gossamer filaments that wind in upon each other. As long as you are willing to slip along them, they'll carry you to your grave in ignorance of what and who the whole matrix of gossamer actually functions for. But as soon as you start to question it the whole mass of it comes apart in pieces.

I think the double-binding nature of the Mormon apologetic enterprise drives me up a wall. That is why pieces like the one I linked to really p!ss me off. They are blatant in their BS and the whole presentation is meant to disqualify any disagreement and to make the casual reader feel that there is nothing special or remarkable going on (thanks to the tolerant sounding rhetoric), just typical disgruntlement from typical sour grapes former members who are typically prone to lying. The premise is a scream and anyone on the outside should be able to see it for the thinly veiled effort at control and disqualification of dissent that it is. Of course how many outsiders would ever bother? The thing is meant primarily for internal consumption, especially members, but there must be some awareness on the part of the writer(s) that exmos would read it too, in which case I do not see the piece as meant in any way as reconciling, which is in interesting contrast to the resignation letter pamphlet/brochure they send to exiting exmos, which oozes with unctuous, sanctimonious tolerance and saccharine fellowship, asking us to return to the fold.

Yes, it's an immunization act.

no brainwashing or coercion? wow!

Apparently they don't understand that ex-mormons don't need to lie to turn anyone against the church. Telling the truth about church history does way more damage than any lie ever would. That is why the church has to lie about it. Can you imagine what would happen if they told the truth the whole truth about JS alone?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/03/2011 07:51PM by mia.

Any examples you have in mind of that "brainwashing that makes one believe it isn't brainwashing" would be interesting. I mean, what do Mormons specifically teach or do that leads members to think that they are not brainwashed?

I remember as a member having discussions in EQ about people calling the church a "cult." And everyone was in a huff; nothing could be further from the truth as everyone believes something and every group has a "CULTure," so why single out Mormons as being a cult? Of course, none of those guys to my knowledge had read Hassan.

Looking back, the main brainwashing tactic seemed to be fear--fear of God, fear of the other ward members, fear of the Bishop, fear of church HQ, fear of the Stake, fear of doing anything sinful, fear of "anti-Mormons," fear of being unworthy, fear of not doing everything one was told to do, etc. Phobia induction to this degree is a key sign of a cult according to Hassan.

In other news, Anarchy.com writes negative review about democracy.com...

It's been said by others, and I think it's true, that Mormonism's only hope of becoming accepted as a sort of mainstream church depends on whether it becomes less defensive toward those who leave the church. Reactions like this one make the church look very cultish.

where we are told we are in darkness.

It is ex-Mormons who are filling the internet with truth about Mormonism, and you know how unhelpful THAT is. It is ex-Mormons who are promulgating quotes from former prophets which tarnish the Church's reputation.

Who else but ex-Mormons are to blame for the exodus of anyone who can read and who researches their decisions on the internet. Or asks someone who does that.

Mormons have stopped ignoring and shunning us long enough to condemn us--which is a step up!

I'll drink to that--carry on! And kudos for everyone who utters an anti-Mormon word. Yes, I am advocating quoting scriptures and history right from Mormon sources.

Anagrammy

I had no idea it was the exmormons and the so-called antimormons who were the ones telling the truth.