What do you see as some to the tell-tale signs of an LDS apologist posting on this site? For sure, some trolls are just too obvious to bother with. But clearly, RFM represents a fun-to-poke hornets' nest if an apologist has his or her knickers in a knot and wants to test a theory or see what sort of reaction some idea will get. For example, I know that Van Hale has posted here before.

Also, RFM is a nice juicy place for LDS marketers to do market research (and that's pretty much all active Mormons, but I'm thinking of anyone hired by the church to develop ideas about how the church is received). My understanding is that the church hires a number of professionals to size up their social or demographic possibilities. I can see that the church would be interested to know why people left; their demographics (as much as that could be deteremined); their ways of coping with the stresses of trying to leave the organization; and so on. I remember hearing that men who converted in their late 30s or 40s were the most likely to not apostatize.

What gives apologists' posts here away? Or, what sort of posts do you imagine they might try here?

I'm also thinking of the old US OSS (forerunner of the CIA) WWII trick of exaggerating Japan's military successes by one-third, as a way to disrupt Japanese soldiers' morale.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2011 07:01PM by derrida.

I think the best thing to do is to give everybody the benefit of the doubt. The truth is that you can't tell, and people who think they can sniff out a troll are wrong the vast majority of the time.

Only Church-approved witchhunters are allowed to do that...

One thing I noticed about a certain troll, who I will call "off the marc" was that he complained about trivial things, and not doctrine. By avoiding the real issues, he had the ability to "return and report" that he had not read "anti-" or apostate arguments. He was discussing boy scouts, and dances - not "anti" material. He led everyone around into meaningless discussions, and people with real recovery issues or doctrinal questions were not helped by this. That might be something to consider. Someone who stirs everyone up literally over nothing.

It is also possible that those were the things that bothered him. Everyone isn't into doctrine and history. That said, I think I know who your are talking about and I was suspicious too. I think the best thing is to report them.I'm not good at spotting trolls and there are people here who are way too fast at calling 'troll'. According to some of them, I am a troll. Why? Because I don't agree with them.It is ridiculous to assume that someone is a troll just because they don't share your views.

Others:

I don't know why someone doesn't just move on.

I don't understand why anyone would want to remain at a site like this after getting out of mormonism.

It's healthier to just forgive and forget.

All I see is anger and bitterness in those who leave, or those who post here.

I'm not angry and see that mormonism had it's good points and I hope others will listen and realize that they gained something of worth along with whatever offended them.

I see it as a fairness issue. It's fine to point out flaws in mormonism but we should not throw the baby out with the bath.

You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, so I try to be as kind and tactful as possible with mormons.

You have to see these issues from their point of view. They think they're being helpful when they do things that bother exmos.

I remember a post not long ago about a straight man that the poster considered very brave because he was "trying to understand homosexuality". As I read it I was really irritated but by the time I figured out why the thread had closed. It boils down to this:

You don't HAVE to understand, you just have to accept that people have an inherent right to live their lives the way that works for them (provided they aren't harming others in the process). For instance, I don't understand why my son and daughter in law like to eat mushrooms and I guarantee you I never will. I find them utterly revolting, texture, smell, the whole shebang -- but that doesn't stop me from accepting that they do. I even cook them for them sometimes. THEY like them, as incomprehensible as it is to me.

It's the same thing with religion, sexual orientation, and basic life choices. Some people poke countless holes in their body or permanently alter their appearance or get tattos -- all things that I find fairly incomprehensible. But I don't have to understand it because it's THEIR lives, not mine. (Of course I don't find a lot of it attractive either. lol)

So yeah, I hate those kinds of phrases especially "I'm just trying to understand." Quit trying to understand and start trying to accept the fact that it's not your life to live.

It makes no difference because no one *must* understand. If they're not interested or don't have the inner resources to walk in someone else's shoes, it's they who are limited and stiffled, not the target they conplain about.

Cheryl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It makes no difference because no one *must*
> understand. If they're not interested or don't
> have the inner resources to walk in someone else's
> shoes, it's they who are limited and stiffled, not
> the target they conplain about.

It is possible that someone does not understand and my sincerely want to get it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2011 09:36PM by bona dea.

Umm...I'm nice to Mormons and I'm not angry. Not sure why those are characteristics of a troll.

snb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Umm...I'm nice to Mormons and I'm not angry. Not
> sure why those are characteristics of a troll.

They aren't We have all had different experiences and some of us don't hate Mormons. that hardly makes us trolls



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2011 08:43PM by bona dea.

I didn't think so either :)

Cheryl, a lot of these seem to be boiler-plate TBM reactions to RFM. And these are the sorts of things I think I was aiming at with this topic. So thanks for reading between the lines (I'm not sure I was able to communicate what I was after very well) and treating my question in this manner. Some of the lines you use ("we should not throw the baby out with the bath") remind me of Dehlin or some of the cultural Mormons who feel connected to the culture of their ancestors even if they do find themselves disagreeing with the church's more paleo-conservative stances.

I have seen some posters, verging on trollery, pose the question of why anyone would post here or why anyone could possibly have anything against the church. Different strokes for different folks, so please just move along. I posted on some of those threads, as I think you did, defending my inordinate attention to the details of the recovery process from mormonism.

The other sorts of posts, and I guess that's why this was on my mind, are just nonsense. "Brookside" was posting topics yesterday that made absolutely no sense to me. I think today "Fran" was posting questions that many people treated seriously but that I was really wondering about--questions like, do you want to recover? There was a weird pointless survey quality to the topic.

In general I think that RFM does well against trollishness. I like posting and reading here because people are allowed to speak their minds, to talk about their pain, and to say what the feel. I do appreciate the advice I've gotten here and I like to help out or at least show a little sympathy where I can.

derrida Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cheryl, a lot of these seem to be boiler-plate TBM
> reactions to RFM. And these are the sorts of
> things I think I was aiming at with this topic.
> So thanks for reading between the lines (I'm not
> sure I was able to communicate what I was after
> very well) and treating my question in this
> manner. Some of the lines you use ("we should not
> throw the baby out with the bath") remind me of
> Dehlin or some of the cultural Mormons who feel
> connected to the culture of their ancestors even
> if they do find themselves disagreeing with the
> church's more paleo-conservative stances.
>
> I have seen some posters, verging on trollery,
> pose the question of why anyone would post here or
> why anyone could possibly have anything against
> the church. Different strokes for different
> folks, so please just move along. I posted on
> some of those threads, as I think you did,
> defending my inordinate attention to the details
> of the recovery process from mormonism.
>
> The other sorts of posts, and I guess that's why
> this was on my mind, are just nonsense.
> "Brookside" was posting topics yesterday that made
> absolutely no sense to me. I think today "Fran"
> was posting questions that many people treated
> seriously but that I was really wondering
> about--questions like, do you want to recover?
> There was a weird pointless survey quality to the
> topic.
>
> In general I think that RFM does well against
> trollishness. I like posting and reading here
> because people are allowed to speak their minds,
> to talk about their pain, and to say what the
> feel. I do appreciate the advice I've gotten here
> and I like to help out or at least show a little
> sympathy where I can.


I can see where people who are newly disenchanted by the church might ask some of those questions and be sincere. Like I have said before, we have all had different experiences whch color our view of the church. I am not particularly angry with the church because i was never badly treated. That doen't mean I like the church, wnat to be a Mormon or agree with their beliefs. This forum didn't exist when I left and neither did the internet of PCs, but I could see myself, at that point, wondering about a lot of those things.That doesn't mean I am a troll.

I think those who don't "get it" are in a partial bubble and don't want to fully understand what you've intimated.

Wow...not subtle at all, are we?

snb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow...not subtle at all, are we?

It takes time to understand. people do not change from TBM to ex Mos over night. It takes time.

This is a community, and like any other community, it has certain rules. Some new exmormons tend to have a hard time fitting in, and playing by the rules.

For example, nobody should be telling you how you should recover, or how much attention you should put into things. Nobody should be attacking anybody.

However, if a person shows TBM style thinking, or the person is aggressive, it does not mean the person is an apologist. Perhaps the aggressive poster should be put in their place (Timothy and matt tend to do good jobs at that, haha), but to suggest that they are really a Mormon spy is incredibly hurtful and out of line, no matter the transgression.

Edited for clarity :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2011 09:37PM by snb.

It has to be good for them to be here, they are learning.

I have once in a great while been the recipient of troll like interest (forunately I'm such an over the top extravert that even when I am getting negative attention I tend to think "hey wow, someone's paying attention!")

Anyway, ignore behavior that seems suspicious or hey, take them on, sometimes it's fun to get into a scrap. But I don't think they are some insidious evil that we have to watch out for. More like a mosquito - annoying, but pretty harmless.

I remember John Lynch a few years ago. He was the Chairman of FAIR and came on the board as someone who wanted information. It took several weeks to out him. He really created some controversy. I don't remember who outed him, but I do remember challenging him on a number of threads. He was much more glib than DCP(Denial C. Peterson or "little Danny") who posted from time to time, trying to stir up controversy.

Lynch's scalp from his computer monitor... Van Hale got beat up here a few times, insisting he wasn't "defending the faith." RandyJ. nailed him, but not before I had some fun giving Hale some history lessons.

A couple of months ago a poster came here masquerading as a woman and bringing "her" take on Michael Quinn and whether his being gay influenced his interpretations of same sex sealings in Nauvoo circa 1839-44...

Then "she" cited a FARMS document, and I gave her props for daring to put something like that here. Steve Benson wasn't having any of that though and pricked her bubble and dang if she didn't grow horns and warts and undergo a likely sex change. I e-mailed ADMIN and the post was pulled fairly quickly.

Steve and I discussed it over breakfast a few weeks later, and my opinion is it was Peterson himself doing a drag routine, although I'm not absolutely sure. They expressed an admiration for Steve's grandfather, ETB, and that sort of academic voice used in the writing is difficult to maintain without a lot of practice (I know you can, Jim).

There's no doubt Peterson still pops in here from time to time...

As for the rest, how I work at "outing" the more subtle ones is proprietory information...

Glad you're around, Jim...

...was really doing market research on this, and similar sites, then they would be trying to make church fun again, because it's been complained about numerous times here. I know that SusieQ#1 and others have written about the road shows, book clubs, cookouts, and other social activities from the 60's and 70's that have largely fallen by the wayside.

I think it's obvious that the powers-that-be don't give a fig about the members. They drain the members of time and money, constantly drone on about the church at the pitiful activities they do have, force the members to clean, and seldom have any fun activities for them. Why would young or questioning members stick around? There's little to keep them there.

It would be an easy enough problem to fix, but the church doesn't care to fix it. They're too busy with their real estate deals, I guess.

Making the church more fun, my bff who's RfM used to take me to the tuesday night meetings where the young women go ice-blocking, play flour tag, have spa specialists come in, and things like that. they're working on making it more fun from what I see, but that's just the milk.

I think they are totally out of touch.Let's take more, give less and make it as boring as possible. That is the way to grow. Oh, yes, let's make as many silly rules as we possibly can. That should work. Not!

Sadly it is the nature of groups to tend to impose the correct beliefs or opinions on others in the group. And it is the nature of groups to scapegoat members who seem to stray from the correct viewpoint. That is why free thinking and expressing one's true opinion is much more difficult than it would first appear. RfM is no different than that which is true of human nature generally. I have seen long time posters here accused of being apologists unfairly. Just because they may point out a middle ground in seeing good in Mormon people, not wanting to abuse missionaries, or any number of view points considered by whoever launches the attack as heresy to their idea of what an exMo should believe.

Even a gay poster expressing his disagreement with anonymous sex and his concerns about AIDS and ethical issues around sexuality was quickly cannibalized as a "self hating gay man" and shouted down with personal attacks. Groups tend to attack their own who stray from the accepted thinking.

As others have said people are at different places in their journey. Questions, I think, should be respected as questions rather than us assuming they have a motive of undermining our special recovery group if we don't like the question.

Trolls who post to stir trouble are usually more obvious. But I don't think we should be investing a lot of energy detecting who the apologists are because it leads to much unjustified persecution of people who express opinions we don't like, solidifies group think, marginalizes any but the majority views, scares new people from participating. Its not a good idea to cultivate a culture of reading into people's motives where they have not specifically said they are defending the church.

That's my opinion.