Dear BP,

I am asking for an apology. Although I applaud your search and am encouraged that you are open to considering other points of view, you have a track record of ad hominem attacks against questioning thinkers. The journey for truth is varied and broad, one in which beliefs and views are changed and enlightened. This board celebrates that process, so welcome.

What this board does not celebrate, is attacking the person who holds a divergent view. If you want myself and others like me to engage you, you must shun this tactic. A good place to start would be to offer a board-wide apology for years of ad hominem attacks to critical thinkers everywhere.

Fudley

Whoa there Fudley, we all did sh!t that we are ashamed of as Mormons. There is no need to go around throwing stuff like that in people's faces. In my opinion your demand is way over the top, live and let live.

Agreed. We were all in the Mormon mindset at one point. That's why we are here now. Let it go.

This has nothing to do with being a Mormon. It has to do with ad hominem attacks.

I'm sure most people have made ad hominem attacks at one point or another. Let the last go and focus on the present.

Yes, I would wager that most have. I have too on occasion. I apologize to all who have been on the receiving end of my ad hominem attacks. It was wrong and unproductive. I shun its use.

It's really not that hard to apologize when you truly mean it.
It's only difficult when you don't.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/13/2013 10:01AM by fudley.

Resisting the expression of ad hominem attacks is a skill which must be developed after one leaves a cult which was founded on the basis of other-thinkers being an abomination.

Instead of worrying about the a.h. attacks of others, and what they should do about it, why don't you concern yourself with developing more understanding of why you read this in a post on a public board and feel compelled to demand that an apology be given.

After all, compulsion is Satan's Way....

Ana

I'm still wrestling with all of this so thanks for your comment.
I do want to respond to BP's gracious apology below, but other than acknowledging it here and now (should I even dare to say -thank you?), I need a bit more time to sort things out (also stated below).

I don't think that "asking" and "demanding" are synonymous, but perhaps the tone of my opening post makes that observation moot.

Bringing Satan into this sounds, well, rather mormonish.

What is unreasonable about not engaging in ad hominem - a board rule? What is unreasonable about asking for an apology?

where he did that to anyone on this board. Seems to me if you're asking the professor to apologize for his YouTube or other apologetic stuff, then you should also ask everyone on the board who ever criticized or made fun of it to apologize to him. Dude changed his mind. Give him a break!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/13/2013 12:56PM by munchybotaz.

It's the internet. I just let it run off like rain off the roof, no use worrying. Haters will hate.

To backyardprofessor:

I, for one, see no need for an apology from you. Your honesty in admitting being shaken by Riskas' book is sufficient (in my view) acknowledgement of the errors of your apologetic years. You may feel that you owe an apology to some specific people, but that is between you and them.

From me, a hearty welcome, without chastisement for the past.

Richard Packham

Well said, Bravo.

I respect your view very much, Mr. Packham. You have been so helpful during my journey. I also do not wish to censure or rebuke Mr. Shirts' views - even those while acting as an apologist. I do take issue with his past attacks on people, however.

Did Mr. Shirts offend me (the age old exmo question)?
Well, yes. Does this mean he should apologize to the board? Certainly not for chastisement purposes.

Should we all shun ad hominem? In my view, yes. Should I have contacted him privately and asked for an apology off-board instead of airing what might only be MY proverbial dirty laundry?

Not sure. I think it depends on what my motives were (unclear at this point) and how those motives are perceived by my peers. Exmo peer review means a lot to me. I'll return and report when I sort this out.

Cheers!

Shout out to you Richard. You are the damn man. You helped me out more than you will ever know. From the bottom of my heart, THANK YOU.

fudley wrote:
--------------------

>I am asking for an apology... for years of ad hominem
>attacks to critical thinkers everywhere.

Sounds like an effective preemptive attack, applicable to
any would-be poster here, who has a lengthy, documented
record of engaging in back and forth commentary and
arguments regarding controversial topics.

If you get the apology you ask for, what will you have
accomplished? Perhaps the admission that repentance
demands restitution? Perhaps an admission that practically
any long term defender of embattled viewpoints is going
to "attack the messenger" now and then, in order to avoid
having to admit and confront the message itself?

I'm reminded of a very strange scene that I once witnessed
in the lobby of a major tourist hotel in Seoul -- where
the clerk at the reception desk was demanding that a guest
coming in to claim a reserved room, apologize for having a
North Korean entry stamp in her passport -- something about
the need to "renounce all that you have done" that has
"offended us." The tourist lady mumbled some repentant
sounding words and was then handed her room-key.

I hope that we can work to avoid such shaming here.

UD

First, no apologies needed. We all make mistakes when acting on false information and religious false information is the most difficult of all.

Second, Kerry was a ardent defender of the faith but I always liked him. Maybe it was his quirky nature but I never felt he was an attacking asshole like others could be. I was surprised at first when I hear but then I realized not really.

Welcome to reality of realizing in your religion "everything's made up and the points don't matter".

Cheers!

Phaedrus UT

Phaedrus UT Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Second, Kerry was a ardent defender of the faith
> but I always liked him. Maybe it was his quirky
> nature but I never felt he was an attacking
> asshole like others could be.

+1

Kerry was the most likeable LDS apologist on you tube IMO.

I gave him some very appropriate heavy criticism for his apologetics in the past, but always liked him as a person.

Seeing Kerry's position turn around should give great hope to everyone who still has loved ones stuck and suffering in the LDS mind-set (unless they are happy and all is fine etc).

You just never know who is next to open up like that. It's very brave of him also.

Who would have ever thought we would see The Backyard Professor this way now? :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/13/2013 01:39PM by zeezrom.

Actually, I appreciate all the sentiments presented here. A very good discussion. And I will apologize for those ad hominims (I still may be guilty of more in the future, I mean, after all, now this same charge has been leveled against me by some apologists!). That apology being said, I think in the long run we work through our humanness, we all want to be right, we know all others are not near as right as we are, and we let them know it, and then we come to realize that our own confirmation biases demonstrate that we aren't so right about very many things ourselves. It is quite the quandary to work through this thing called life eh?
Let me make one thing crystal clear, that confuses absolutely everyone. And I don't intend it to do so either. I want to understand the truth. Now interestingly, (this is gonna make you cringe, can't help it), I side with Brigham Young and Joseph Smith when they say we HAVE to look for it, in whatever areas, places, philosophies, mathematics that it resides because we want all truth. I mean it's a noble sentiment isn't it? How can one possibly argue with that, regardless of who said it right? Well, the problem is, the truth is never solid. That is why I am making this new series of videos discussing Charles R. Harrell's book. He demonstrates that the truth is always re-contexted, reanalyzed, rethought, redone, and reinterpreted. It's the weirdest thing because we all want something absolute. Something.......well.........true! DUH! But can we ever get it? Like him or not, Nibley was right, the ONLY correct cure for pride is MORE LEARNING and KNOWLEDGE, NOT less, caving into mind numbing faith.
So in the process of trying to continue learning, my paradigm has changed. It has to, or someone is not learning. To think we can stay where we are intellectually, spiritually, physically, is just not possible. At one point I actually truly sincerely believed I WAS THERE though. THAT is why the ad hominims came out, I am more than sure, and why they continue to do so. However, in my weakness I did attack people, and for that I am sincerely sorry. I was wrong. I will be wrong in the future for doing so, as anyone else is. But, with our humanity, with our reasonings, critical thinkings, questions, answers, and more answers, disagreements, we can all laugh about our silliness and our worked up phony knowledge, and thus progress together in recognizing that a true education understands that the truth is we are all, after all is said and done, merely ignorant simpletons. And so it goes. Thanks for the welcomes. I am looking forward to discussing things. I won't always agree so please bear with me as I am learning as you all are.
I am still Mormon, and have no desire to upset the applecart. I am insistent to myself on learning from all sides, everything I can. I believe there is good knowledge by everyone that can benefit us all. I've rambled enough.

Welcome to the fray, BP. I've only seen you as a Mormon apologist. I look forward to watching your new videos.

You said, in part:

"Now interestingly, (this is gonna make you cringe, can't help it), I side with Brigham Young and Joseph Smith when they say we HAVE to look for it, in whatever areas, places, philosophies, mathematics that it resides because we want all truth."

You're right. I did cringe. It's de rigueur for an exmo, no? :)

BP: "I mean it's a noble sentiment isn't it? How can one possibly argue with that, regardless of who said it right?"

Noble sentiment or so-called noble lie - at this point I wouldn't hold out any ideas from JS or BY as my watchwords for life. I can understand that, as a Mormon, you would, so I won't argue with you about it, other than to point out that you can get the same ideas from many sources.

BP: "Well, the problem is, the truth is never solid."

Not sure what you mean by "solid" but I'd say that "truth" if you mean "fact" is solid if it is proven objectively and absolutely.

The trick for us, tougher depending where we are on our journey of discovery, is to carefully separate fact from belief or theory (careful with this one - some scientific "theories" are actually proven, not just conjecture, as some of our own "theories" may be).

I try to keep objectives sorted from subjectives and facts from speculation and then go from there along the trail of discovery.

So, some truths are "solid" in that they are proven. Ideas or beliefs that we think are facts are not "solid" if they are merely comprised of our feelings or traditions or customs or pithy sayings handed down or even if it turns out to be the entirety of our culture if that is wrapped around the teachings of those who turn out to have had a poor grasp of facts and an uncertain character.

It's up to us, if we want to find "truth" to sort out the difference.

Nightingale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>...
> It's up to us, if we want to find "truth" to sort
> out the difference.

Truth?

Oh no... not back to Truth again!

>The Truth is out there! (Agents Mulder & Scully)

>Truth crushed to earth will rise again! (Nauvoo Wasp masthead)

>Magna est veritas et praevalebit (last words of Unka Dale)


OK, I made that last one up -- it would never be my motto.
And I'm very tempted to counsel that seeking Truth is a
fool's errand.

True water I can drink; true air I can breathe; true stones
I can pick up and throw at a true wolf. But Truth?

Truth?
Not so much.

The "true" UD last words:
>Dicit ei Pilatus: Quid est veritas?

Kerry, I applaud your courage to take all knowledge and not discard what didn't fit. I do question you motives. I admit it. I don't need an apology. Your intelligence is obvious, I just thought it was very, very misdirected to the point of making logical leaps of superman portions.

If, now with your new perspective, you see fit to understand those of us that mocked you as a junior apologist, I personally would appreciated your effort.

After reading your review of Riskas' book I think you would make a better apostate than apologist. But this is my opinion. I'm not insisting your burn bridges.

We all abide by board rules. I don't think this board may be one you will want to frequent (see bridges comment.)

Anyway welcome. And if you get a chance I have a post for you to reply to here:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,893537

I'm going to be doing some homework. See what's up.

If you are an active LDS priesthood holder and open to conversation, perhaps a key question I have is at what point is it no longer acceptable to withhold the truth of Joseph Smith from members and prospects, and why aren't children considered prospects.

The LDS church allows children to graduate seminary, LDS missionaries to convert people, and young adults to graduate from their university and institute programs uninformed, let alone programmed on Joseph Smith.

When do Mormons get to learn Mormon history at what age or stage?

Kerry,

You say you’re making “adjustments” and that you’re through wasting your time as an LDS apologist. You say you can no longer defend the indefensible but still remain a true-believing Mormon. Why?

Any apology now seems vapid without admitting you were aiding and abetting a colossal ruse.

I understand it must be difficult for anyone to classify himself as a “thinker” and then admit that he’s spent most of his adult life furthering the ends of a large multi-level-marketing scam like LDS Inc. I applaud you and your recent attempt to replace your former mindset with one of rational thought. You’re still in denial but making progress...baby steps, Kerry...baby steps.

I don't feel a need for an apology or for anyone to ask for one on my behalf. (We have posters here who believe ex-Mormon returned missionaries should also apologize for for having been missionaries. I don't. So . . . .) I also feel that before we congratulate ourselves too hard for being more rational than Mormons, we should keep in mind that very, very often rationality is employed to defend our *unconscious* decisions and biases, although, of course, we argue we are being objective.

>>how those motives are perceived by my peers.

Perceived by this peer to reflect poorly on the community.

Don't get me wrong, I grin at an opportunity to make an apologist feel uncomfortable, but in an instance where this particular apologist has both feet in his mouth, let's move on.

We aren't meant to be victims in all seasons.

Backyardprofessor wrote:

> That is why I am making this new series of videos discussing Charles R. Harrell's book. He demonstrates that the truth is always re-contexted, reanalyzed, rethought, redone, and reinterpreted.

Harrell's book is "This Is My Doctrine: The Development of Mormon Theology" which was published very recently. It is an excellent and well-researched book. My review (which I wrote for the Association for Mormon Letters) is at http://packham.n4m.org/doctrine.htm

I certainly agree with the BP's endorsement of the statements by Brigham Young and Joseph Smith about searching for truth, wherever it may be found. No ex-Mormon should "cringe" at a suggestion that some Mormon prophet said something good or praiseworthy, or that there are some truths and uplifting things in Mormon scripture.

For example, I agree wholeheartedly with what Joseph Smith said he was told by the personage in his "First Vision": that all churches are man-made.

I have only a minor quibble with BP's interpretation of Harrell's thesis: that theological "truth" changes and develops. Certainly the theology changes. I doubt that anything purely theological should be characterized as "truth."

But perhaps that is my atheist bias.

RPackham Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I certainly agree with the BP's endorsement of the
> statements by Brigham Young and Joseph Smith about
> searching for truth, wherever it may be found. No
> ex-Mormon should "cringe" at a suggestion that
> some Mormon prophet said something good or
> praiseworthy, or that there are some truths and
> uplifting things in Mormon scripture.

I was one who said I cringed and what I meant by that was that I wouldn't hold a statement made by JS or BY as my life's motto or inspiration. As a Christian, I would perhaps choose a scripture from the Holy Bible - eg: Paul's words to the Philippians (4:8):

"... whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable--if anything is excellent or praiseworthy--think about such things." (NIV, 2011)

Others choose lines of poetry or verses of song or even family mottos as their watchwords for life.

With the greatest respect,I think that nobody can say what ALL exmos should say or feel or think or do. Yes, I would cringe to hear the words of JS or BY as my "inspiration" every day. I don't care if they're true or not - and if they are they were probably said by somebody else.

I can understand that a Mormon would still find them powerful, even a questioning Mormon. But I do not. And I'd guess that many here feel the same.

I also meant by my 'cringe' comment that you can find those same powerful statements elsewhere so I would strongly recommend that Mormons, and other believers, not base their membership solely on such shaky foundations.

Even as a convert, I did that for a while with JS. I found that blanking out everything else and just holding onto one statement from a particular period of time did not serve me well overall. And since all my reading on RfM and finding out that JS was a serial adulterer, at best, and was perhaps knowingly involved in multiple abortions*, and that BY was involved to at least some extent in MMM, to borrow a phrase from Bill Maher, that is all you need to know about the both of them.

So, yes, I would cringe to use the words of either one of them for any reason other than to convict them at the very least of being incapable of upholding truth and goodness and of being world class liars with it.


*Disclaimer: I am pro-choice but against abortion the way JS apparently did it, not giving the many women involved a choice in the matter and, as usual, he did it in secret. Ugh. Source: Deconstructor's material found here:

http://www.i4m.com/think/



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/14/2013 01:50PM by Nightingale.

We were all guilty at some level in our defense of Mormonism. Inside the bubble of belief is the repetitive verbiage of apologetic rhetoric that gets parroted from the top on down to Seminary and on to the Sunday school teachers. There is no thought put into the defense mechanism (other than that deliberately installed by the correlation committee) that then spews out of a believer’s mouth.

The defense mechanism verbiage literally becomes social memes inside mormonism. It becomes automatic after time in the church and why not? Others with ‘”seemingly” more knowledge or those in positions of authority said it therefore it is assumed that these defense memes have been vetted.
I certainly repeated these memes during my 40 years of tenure inside the bubble.

Now I’m on the outside seeing inside clearly. I cringe at what others thought as I used these defense memes to justify my Mormon thinking. Now when I hear the same memes coming from others I just think “Wow, they have no idea what they just said”.

I personally require no apology from any person who used to justify the Mormon position by any means.
My reward is the same reward I got when The BYP was simply honest with himself. It was that personal feeling that maybe, just maybe the world is going to turn out OK after all. It gave me the thought that maybe even Daniel Peterson could someday look back and say to himself “Man what an ass I was! Now I get it, now I get it.”


The difference with me and that of BYP’s position of not upsetting the apple cart is that I will NOT rape informed consent in the misguided assumption that my children will grow up better humans by raising them inside the church. Me not teaching my children what I know about the reality of the men behind the curtains of Mormonism is the destruction of their free agency.

I have the courage to tell them the truth, the Apple Cart be damned!

Your apology is more than I deserve. I accept it unconditionally and look forward to learning as much from your journey as I have from other courageous thinkers (Thanks to RP, Unc, Ana, and many others who called me on this). My motives were less than stellar, ironic, and ill-conceived.

I apologize to the board for attempting to speak on its behalf, and to you Mr. Shirts. You are not my punching bag!

To quote my favorite exapologist:
"I think in the long run we work through our humanness, we all want to be right, we know all others are not near as right as we are, and we let them know it, and then we come to realize that our own confirmation biases demonstrate that we aren't so right about very many things ourselves."

Wise words, BP - thanks.

Forza