It was a pretty funny read, and quite interesting in my responses to it as I read. I felt like it hit the nail on the head based on what I observe on exmo reddit. I cant tell you how many times I have seen a post over there that reads, "Help, my Mom gave me some counter arguments that I cant get around! Can someone please give me some material to refute her and shut her down?" My reaction has always been that if you cant stand on your own to feet maybe you need to do some more thinking and reading. I thought the article highlighted that sort of attitude.
I can give my reactions to each of the articles points below, but I would love to hear yalls reactions to it as well.
1. I think this is a convenient straw man and oversimplification. As with this whole issue of Mormonism and faith in general, you cannot lump everyone into the same box. While I am sure that some people feel that all apologists operate with bad faith not everyone does. But the people who do are quite vocal and seem to be "the face" of exmormons. So I sympathize with the poster on this point. But I think that the other side of the coin applies to apologists as well.
Ok, fine. I agree that someone probably should give as much time to Nibley and Skousen as they do to Runnells and a lot don't. Their bad. But speaking as someone who has given Nibley, Gee, Ricks, and some others I can say that it didn't help. In the case of Gee, it hurt more than helped. Nibley too. The poster talked about Givens and Bushman and how they get dismissed based on their attachment to the church and how they wouldn't want to jeopardize their careers or community by saying any more controversial stuff than they already have. I think the poster underestimates the pain and suffering that goes into a faith transition. Understandably because it has not happened to them.(If you have any doubt that the peer reviewed academic work of such PhDs as Hugh Nibley, John Gee, Stephen Ricks, Royal Skousen, Steven Harper, and John Welch is nothing but pseudo-scholarship, be sure you read the non-peer reviewed, self-published work of the non-PhD Jeremy Runnells.)
2. Point number two discusses how exmormons allegedly wont do the requisite homework to come to a well reasoned conclusion. This homework requires reading apologetic works from Sorenson, Perego, Hales etc.
Point taken. I agree actually. I think that research includes both sides of an issue, and most people would agree with me. The problem comes with differing paradigms. Most of those works require a few key assumptions that most of us exmo's don't employ. This gets in the way of taking some of these apologetic works seriously. One of these assumptions is that Joseph was telling the truth when he spoke. Brian Hales uses this assumption in most of his work. I don't think Joseph was telling the truth, so if Brian Hales' whole point rests on that, what use is it to me? The OP also takes umbrage with exmos labeling what they do as mental gymnastics. I find it hard to believe that they cannot see the kind of effort it takes to make some of the arguments work.Dear reader, don't be misled by such deception! As is invariably the case, the simplest, quickest, easiest explanation is always the right one. (I mean, that's just science. Ockham's razor, amiright?) You might suppose that the TBM apologist is trying to get you to "think critically" or "carefully reconsider your views" about the issue, but this is not the case. No, this is a diversionary tactic. I mean, really. Who in their right mind is going to read John Sorenson's 800-paged, heavily-footnoted opus Mormon's Codex: An Ancient American Book? That stuff is boring, hard to read, uses lots of scholarly jargon, and will ultimately just draw you away from precious Reddit time.
It would be fascinating if we could quantitatively rank mental models based on parsimony with a kind of AIC criterion. But again, this comes down to paradigm differences. I value simplicity, they clearly don't. How do you reconcile that? I don't think you can.
3. This point sounds to me like he is whining about an internet phenomenon that he doesn't like, and more of a generational thing then a specific exmo thing.
Really? Phalanx of PhDs? That's like saying that Monsanto has the worlds best interests at heart because they employ a "phalanx of PhD's" as well. Jeez, so all we need to do is employ some well educated people to gain legitimacy and respect? That seems like a millennial attitude in itself.What matters isn't whether the meme is "true" or not. What matters is the emotional response it'll evoke in the people who see it, and that it gives you, dear reader, the sense of sophistication and erudition that you so desperately need in the presence of a phalanx of history PhDs at the Joseph Smith Papers and the BYU Church History Department.
4. I think that this is a good point. I personally think that the exmo community gives the church way more credit than it deserves as far as conspiracy theories go. I don't think that they wake up in the morning wondering how they can make life miserable for specific groups of people.
Really? Are the past lies that the church has perpetuated off limits in deciding whether someone is telling the truth or not? I notice that there is not discussion about lies/halftruths/dishonesty that have been perpetuated in the past and how this may color a persons attitude going forward. Are the motivations of Elder Cook off limits? Is the fact that he is publically and clearly in charge of delivering faith promoting stories and speeches not at all a consideration?Likewise, when Elder Cook insists, "Some have asserted that more members are leaving the Church today and that there is more doubt and unbelief than in the past. This is simply not true. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never been stronger. The number of members removing their names from the records of the Church has always been very small and is significantly less in recent years than in the past," you can absolutely bet that's a lie. (What would he know about Church membership retention and numbers anyway, right?)
It sounds like he has a personal problem here. Maybe a nephew or neice that is getting on his facebook nerves?As an added bonus, if you want to be really edgy as an anti-capitalist, atheist whistleblower who's saving the world from religious fanaticism and capitalism, make sure you set as your profile pic a mask mass-produced in China of a 16th century homicidal religious fanatic.
5.
I agree with him here. If we are to move on from Mormonism, and achieve the legitimacy and happiness that we all want, we need to rise above pettiness and just live a good life. Like Red Ryder is always encouraging, just live a good life. That's all the proof we need. This is sooooo much easier said than done however. And the OP in this article does not understand that. He will not understand until he has gone through something of this himself.Don't forget: you are right, they are wrong. You have the truth, they have lies. You're an unbiased, rational thinker, they are deluded, brainwashed sheeple. You have a moral imperative to save those people from their superstition and bigotry, they have the moral imperative to simply accept whatever you say and whatever methods you employ. That means you're free to vandalize, cyberbully, lie, provoke, obfuscate, mislead, deceive, spin, or do anything else you need to do to get the job done.
Conclusion.
Yup, I sure will enjoy my life free from the cult that asked for my time money and unfailing ideological loyalty. I don't think it is fair to compare the exmormon community, which does ask for only as much money as you are willing to give, only as much time as you are willing to give, and does not demand any loyalty. And also does not threaten me with eternal damnation, splitting my family for eternity, and making Jesus sad if I don't give them all those things to the level they decide.I hope, dear reader, that you'll find these suggestions helpful as you begin your exciting new life in the world of ex-Mormonism. Now that you're free from being blindly obedient to a cult that asked for your time, money, and unfailing ideological loyalty, I hope you find joy and goodness in being blindly supportive of an online cause (but definitely not a cult) that asks for your time, money, and unfailing ideological loyalty.
