Kevin Graham wrote:
Droopy, the fact that Don has left the Church and then came back, and still disagrees with your attitude towards "apostates," is further evidence that you are simply out of touch.
With what, Don Bradley, the Church, or apostasy qua apostasy?
Don't presume that just because DOn came back, that he in any way agrees with you on this. He and other LDS folks like Bokovoy and Hauglid are among the few who actually "get it." No wonder you can't stand them.
Agree with me on what? "Get it" about what?
They have more insight into what goes on in the mind of an apostate than you ever will.
Well, as I have never been an apostate, I would have to agree with you there.
All you ever do is judge, and you do so based on what the Church tells you to think about us.
Who is "us" Kevin? Should Don be understood as a "faithful" member, and fully committed to the teachings of the Church and following the Brethren since his return, or are there still strong reservations, on some core doctrines/conceptions, that would place him, in a sense, in an avant garde or idiosyncratic position as to doctrine and philosophy?
As I told Don today, I truly wish the Church were true. But it isn't. It is really that simple. All this psychobabble about why people leave the Church is just crap Mormons say to make themselves feel better about the fact that others have taken an intellectual path and it led them out of the Church.
Seeing you venting your internal psychological conflicts and unresolved childhood developmental fixations is not what I'm interested in, Kevin.
I don;t know the details of Don's apostasy, why he left, or why he returned. You can ask him if you like, though I doubt you will. The point is Don and others are in a better position to speak on the apostate's psyche, and they clearly disagree with you are your ilk.
This is what you said:
That;s one of the things we discusses today during lunch. Don Bradley is one LDS member who actually gets it. Most "apostates" are folks who are genuine in their gripes. Many of them still want the Church to be true. I know I do.
All I wanted was an elucidation of your meaning here. Is Don one of these who believes his problems with the Church are legitimate, and does he see places where the Church is not true (true here, but not there), or has he matured beyond this point?
That's all I was asking.
According to you, we're all just a bunch of disgruntled people who are driven by hate.You
are driven by hate, sour grapes, and a crippling narcissism, but I've never said anything about all those who leave the church as a group. Far from it. You're from the Philastus Hurlbut, Ed Decker, Sonja Johnson wing of the apostate demographic; you still know the church is true at some level, and that knowledge has "seared your conscience as with a hot iron," and left you with a kind of lingering madness in which you have nowhere to go but repentance or all out hostility toward the Church and everything it stands for and approves of, combined with an evangelical mission to convert others out of the church and to your own perspective.
Nothing could be further from the truth, and those in the Church who actually take the time to get to know us, can testify to this. But that would require a Christian heart and desire to understand. Something which you, and the Church as a whole, sorely lacks.
Thanks for substantiating precisely my points above.