Atrocity Tales, Critics & Apostates (attention: beastie)

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Nightingale
_Emeritus
Posts: 323
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 7:31 am

Atrocity Tales, Critics & Apostates (attention: beastie)

Post by _Nightingale »

I was shocked the first time I read FAIR (before it was MAD) to see that ex-members were routinely labelled as "apostate". I remember writing a post on RfM asking "Are we apostates?" Colour me clueless but I thought that was a specific term describing a certain type of disillusioned and vocal ex-member, not a general term that applied to everyone who chose to leave the Mormon Church. I was also surprised to see so many exmos refer to themselves as apostates, even in fun, as back then I thought such terms and classifications meant something momentous.

I was interested in the discussion on FAIR re "leavetakers", "atrocity tales" etc., in which beastie took a major part. I thought it was useful to discuss a generally accepted definition for the terms that people use in the topics we discuss, here, there and over the other there and thought that exxies and FAIRites alike were agreeing to differentiate between "apostate", "leavetaker", "critic", "ex-member", etc. In other words, every exxie isn't apostate and every non-LDS MAD poster is not a "critic". (Can't we just be "non-LDS"?)

Especially what gets my attention (and bugs me) is the tendency to refer to every ex-member's story as an "atrocity tale", as it seems that some MAD posters do. Maybe the CD has rotated too many times (i.e., the record is stuck) and it's now second nature to consider every non-LDS a critic and every ex-member to have an atrocity tale rather than seeing us as people with an (obvious) interest in discussing Mormonism and a life story that (so far) includes a Mormon interlude (mine was three years). I have attended other churches and left, due to moves, altered circumstances, changing beliefs, different needs, and nobody in any of those (non-LDS) churches even remotely considers my "life story" or "personal church history" to include an "atrocity tale" that is automatically "anti" their church. I'm having trouble understanding the skewed perception on this when it comes to LDS.

Is is a clever (and perhaps subconscious?) use of language as a means to discredit a person's story and opinion? Besides that, using the word "atrocity" is very out of place to me - atrocity is genocide, not leaving a church and having valid personal reasons for doing so. Having a difference of opinion about religious beliefs or practices is not about "atrocity". Referring to exmo's stories that way is a form of mockery, it seems to me, and grossly inaccurate.

Or am I being too literal? (That is a flaw I seem to have).

I know the discussion over there was about certain authors and beastie and juliann were disagreeing on the meanings and interpretations. Before that, I was hoping that the LDS FAIR/MAD posters were being more prudent with their choice of labels - I thought that was when "critic" started to spring up - I guess I'll take that before "apostate" - but then again, as a non-LDS poster, even a former member, I'm not automatically a critic. (Or am I?)

I'm thinking about these things in part because of the Maggie Mormon thread over there and also here. Also, I noticed another LDS poster the other day saying he didn't believe in some of the church basics. The first few responses I saw from LDS posters were predictably non-compassionate. I don't understand that either but I'm not surprised. As a convert with questions from day one, it was my consistent experience that questions were met with defensiveness and hostility. It's only lately that I have come to see it must be because every question must feel like an attack; maybe especially on MADB? That's too bad. I have enjoyed attending Bible studies and adult Sunday School classes where questions are welcomed. Nobody expects that all the answers are known either. Most of the time, questions are just questions, not attacks.

So beastie, what is the thing with the automatic assumption that anyone with a question is a critic or a faithless member with an atrocity tale?

Do you know?
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

Yes, this is just one more variation in the long church history of attacking critics in the hopes of discrediting them enough so fellow believers will ignore the points they are trying to make. As an active member, I was familiar with the teachings about why LDS fall from the faith – they’re lazy, proud, sinful, never believed in the first place, etc. But I was not familiar with the long and ugly history of the church leaders in aggressively attacking former believers. Certainly, some former believers who became physically threatening should have been exposed, but church leaders went far beyond that. Take the story of Martha Brotherton, for example, who was obviously telling the truth. She revealed details about the secretive practice of early polygamy that were correct, and BY also validated her story by having him sealed to him as a wife after her death. She was viciously attacked and maligned in the church press, called a whore from her mother’s breast. Even the Book of Mormon witnesses, whom leaders still want believers to view as trustworthy, were not safe from these attacks. After leaving the church, they were called “too mean to mention”, a “dumbass”, liars, cheaters, swindlers, etc. Apparently it didn’t occur to the Mormons On Attack that discrediting the character of people who bore important witnesses about church events wasn’t entirely good idea.

Today’s apologists, having a foot in the camp of academia as well as church teachings, tend to dress up their attempts to discredit critics in terms of academia, hence, Juliann’s distortion of the Bromley essays. Yes, in the Bromley essays an atrocity tale really meant an atrocity tale. In Juliann’s hands, and the eager believers who follow her lead, the term is meaningless and nothing more than a dismissive sneer.

However, when church leaders talk about apostates, they are talking about anyone who rejects their former faith. It’s MAD types who attempt to make that term mean something more specific, in my opinion, and they do so because of the abundance of talks and lessons by church leaders that malign apostates and deliberately link them to satan. They don’t want to admit that the church attacks exmormons first, of course. It’s all the exmormon’s fault.

It’s just one more tired rerun of a very familiar story. And no, it’s not subconscious. It is quite deliberate, and is used by many religious groups that claim some sort of “one only” status.

You may enjoy this essay:


http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/Bible/apostasy.shtml

There is quite possibly no greater threat to the believer than the existence of the apostate. In order to reduce dissonance, the true believer must assume that their own particular system of faith is so obviously true that no open-minded seeker who is fully appraised of the facts can fail to accept it. The apostate represents the real-world disconfirmation of this assumption. It is possible to ascribe the existence of non-believers to several sources – the work of the Enemy, or a deliberate (and thus rebellious) close-mindedness or even, in some cases, non-election. The apostate, however, is in a different class altogether.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
Post Reply