DCP: RFM on the path to Nazism

[_Infymus]

RFM is not a recovery forum since their is very little to recover from. When one looses their testimony there should be an automatic feeling of freedom...no need for a recovery forum in that regard. If I were to loose my testimony, I would feel free as an eagle.

Where have I heard this before... Oh yes, "Ex-Mormons should shut up and sing!"

Let me look at it from my perspective.

15 years of cult indoctrination.
15 years of being carefully lied to about the history of the church.
15 years of guilt ridden doctrine, guilt ridden classes, power mongering priesthood leaders
15 years of cult mentality, think like a Mormon, act like a Mormon, be a "peculiar person"

Suddenly the house of cards crashes...

And you think that we should just be free?

It baffles me that Mormons laugh and scoff when someone leaves their corporation and then require "recovery".

[_Mister Scratch]

Wow... I checked out the thread and was quite stunned. (Well, okay, I wasn't "stunned" at all.) Professor P. appears to be in a real tailspin. I think that we began to see the cracks way back during the "Mike Quinn Affair," when he sent all those threatening emails to Rollo, but now DCP just seems totally out of control. He is like Captain Ahab, megalomaniacally obsessed with RfM. Check out this post:

Three or four times, after returning from month-long trips off the continent during which I've been completely without computer access, having posted and published nothing during the interim, I've returned and, out of curiosity, done a search on the oddly-named "Recovery" board for my name. Invariably, without exception, there have been at least a couple of dozen posts during my absence discussing my insanity, my obscene obesity, my sexual perversity, my dishonesty, my viciousness, my lack of ethics, my pathetic writing skills, and/or my incompetence as a scholar. I don't have to do anything to inspire such outbursts.

All I have to do is to exist. And that's all the Church has to do.

Is he really this naïve, to think that he doesn't "do anything"? Is he unaware of the fact that he is the most visible, best known LDS apologist? Is he not the author of such works as "Apologetics by the Numbers" or "The Witchcraft Paradigm"? Is he not the editor of FARMS Review? Has he not trolled and posted on RfM before?

What we are seeing is an apologist in a state of free-fall. He really seems to be losing it.

[_Mister Scratch]

Here is another very interesting posting from Professor Peterson:

Well, on one level, obviously, since I believe Mormonism to be true, I would prefer that nobody leave the Church. And, thus, I would prefer that RfM not exist.

But that, I think, is not what you're getting at.

I'm not for a moment seeking to tar all RfM posters with the same brush. I don't think that the majority really support the kinds of things I quote in the opening post. So, no, I'm not saying that places like RfM should not exist. But I think it would be nice if RfM were a less welcoming place for those who traffick in personal abuse and hate speech. In other words, I think RfM could be much improved.

(emphasis added)

Huh? What is he saying here? I think he realizes how tenuous his argument is. (And yes, I expect his next remark to be, "No, I am not making an argument here. If you'd like to discuss an argument, you can start a new thread.") Many of the posters on the thread seemed disappointed in DCP that he would be drawing all these parallels between RfM and Nazism, the KKK, and so forth, and yet he continually pooh-poohed their concerns away. Basically, he seems to be issuing forth a sort of "rallying cry" to foment hatred towards RfM. The odd thing about his remarks (as suggested by the quote I cited above) is that he is walking into his own critique. He condemns RfM as being hateful at the same time that he calls for its extermination..... How very interesting indeed.

by the way: he has said several times over the course of the thread that hateful commentary is absent from the MADboard and its denizens. Does he not remember the very dangerous "outing" of JP Holding that was performed by his good buddy Pahoran? Or the remarks from folks such as Programmer and Hammer condemning people to the fires of hell?

[_Dr. Shades]

Will someone please tell me the title of the thread wherein all this takes place?

[_Runtu]

Will someone please tell me the title of the thread wherein all this takes place?

The thread is entitled "Signs of Recovery."

[_guy sajer]

Three or four times, after returning from month-long trips off the continent during which I've been completely without computer access, having posted and published nothing during the interim, I've returned and, out of curiosity, done a search on the oddly-named "Recovery" board for my name.

I find this very, very hard to believe. I've travelled the world, having been in Africa, Asia, S Asia, SE Asia, Latin America, former USSR, including some of the poorest countries on the planet. I've never been completely without computer access. Not only do almost all hotels catering to Westerners offer internet access, but internet café/businesses are typically all over the place.

Now, I've never been to the Middle East, but I see no reason to believe it's different there. It's not poorer there than, say, Zambia, Uganda, Cambodia, Bangladesh, Tanzania, etc. all places where I've been, and all places where I had easy internet access (though sometimes slow).

The only way this is true is if one is travelling out in the bush or rural areas for extended periods of time, which I doubt DCP has done on any of his trips, since he is not a field researcher (or any kind of researcher for that matter).

[_truth dancer]

Here is the truth...

There are great critics. There are great Mormons

There are nasty, cruel, and mean spritied critics and there are nasty, cruel, and mean spirited Mormons.

RFM has great and not so great critics.
MAD has great and not so great Mormons.

Many folks in the LDS church believe people leave due to the influence of Satan.
Many critics of the LDS church believe the church has hurt them.

There you have it! :-)

~dancer~

[_rcrocket]

Well, to see how valid DCP's analogy is, let's do a thought experiement.

Assume that Utah were to cede from the US and create its own republic. The government and its functionaries were controlled by active, believing Mormons.

Assume also that the "typical" posters on RfM were to suddenly find themselves in control of civic government able to structure the laws of society to their liking.

How do you rate the likelihood over time of:

1. The Mormon controlled government granting full range of civil liberties to "angry" apostates or critics of Mormonism.
2. The government controlled by typical RfM posters granting the full range of civil liberties to Mormons, including DCP.

As I recall in an earlier exchange with you, you advocated the use of civil authority to crush Mormonism and Islam. When you denied that, I found your post and posted it and you had no response. Too bad those archives aren't up so I can't retrieve them to again rub your nose in your vomit.

I think that people like you would not permit much religious freedom. Nor would most on RFM.

rcrocket

[_Runtu]

As I recall in an earlier exchange with you, you advocated the use of civil authority to crush Mormonism and Islam. When you denied that, I found your post and posted it and you had no response. Too bad those archives aren't up so I can't retrieve them to again rub your nose in your vomit.

I think that people like you would not permit much religious freedom. Nor would most on RFM.

rcrocket

Come on, Bob. The idea that we who post on RfM are anti-Mormon totalitarians is just a tad over the top, don't you think? Is it possible to disagree without creating caricatures of each other?

[_marg]

I think that people like you would not permit much religious freedom. Nor would most on RFM.

rcrocket

It isn't truly "religious freedom" when the evidence is that the majority of religious organization members have been indoctrinated with the "mythical" beliefs of that organization from a very young age. If it were just a matter of adults choosing the best religion for them, amongst all the beliefs out there and all organizations, after careful consideration, then one could legitimately consider it "religious freedom". But the evidence indicates that something else is going on besides, rational evaluation of evidence and then freely choosing one's religion.

It seems to me that "early training of the young" into the mythical belief system of a religious organization is a rather unethical practice.