Beware of soapboxes ...
Relevance is what determines whether a person considers what you have to say or not.
For example, when I left Mormonism a little over 3 years ago, I found the history of the Church to be grossly misleading. When I mentioned this to my brother (who was almost as devout as I was), he asked for specifics. I told him specifics. He then told me he didn't want to know. That what I had to say about the Church and its history was irrelevant to what he thinks and feels now. That what transpired 150 years ago bears no negative connection to what he knows in his heart to be true. In truth, he didn't <i>want</i> to know anymore. My leaving shook his foundations terribly, because I was always the teacher and advocate, but had become the apostate and pagan.
A gal I was dating back then also wanted to know how I could think in this way about the wonderful Church (and, admittedly, there are good things about it). I told her. She recoiled in horror and we broke up soon after. She wanted to know, but when I told her, she didn't really want to know. I actually said to her that she would have no clue if I was speaking doctrine, fiction, or fact about the Church because the only time she had spent studying the Church was by listening to her friends and family. This was evident by the fact that I would quote to her actual things recorded in Church-approved historical manuals.
I also had a friend whom I was very close to back then. For an entire year through going to movies, talking about lots of crap, and general hanging-out, he never had a clue as to my (dis)beliefs concerning the Church. Then, an episode occurred to where I clued him in on the situation and he immediately withdrew. Perhaps he felt deceived by me. But I had learned from my brother's reaction that it was not relevant, so why divulge it if he didn't ask?
<b>Lamplighter</b> shows some pretty good spunk and studiousness when it comes to defending Mormonism. Apologist links and FARMS quotes abound, which demonstrates his ability to at least think about the issues and try to explain them away.
I once had a roommate who had clued me in to even more historical inaccuracies which the Church sought to cover up and dismiss. He was a history major at Brigham Young University. Graduated top in his class (no joke), got a 172 on the LSAT (top score is 180 I think), had offers from UCLA, Stanford, and Harvard. He went to Harvard. Before he left, he told me that if he found a woman that would enjoy being with him and she happened to be Mormon, he could see himself returning to the Church. He did get married, had a reception in Provo (UT), and I visited with him a bit. He returned to the Church, despite all that we had talked about. He said that there are tons of answers out there [about Mormonism] and it just depends on who you decide to listen to about whether any of it is true or not. But what I thought was that it was all about relevance, especially in one's current situation.
I might be wrong, but I wonder why <b>Randolfo</b> doesn't apply the same amount of discrediting to his own religion as he does with Mormonism. Labeling Mormonism as a cult is just yesteryear's catch-phrase of a much larger endemic.
Most members do not care about the history of the Church. If they can read watered-down versions so much the better. The Church tells its members not to entertain arguments with others, so it's rather refreshing to see those like <b>Lamplighter</b> continuously join in. The fact that he resorts to FARMS and other apologetic sources is also a boon. He searches for the answers. Hopefully, he won't someday search beyond what is relevant.
Thanks!
prag
