Steve Benson's bizarre behavior on the RfM board

[_SatanWasSetUp]

Hey Satan,

Congratulations. You're opening post has made it's way into Doc Peterson's signature on MAaD.

Sheesh. That was quick. Does that guy do anything other than browse message boards? You would think he would be busy with work. Between him and Benson, there must be about 4000 man hours spent posting on message boards. Those two love to hear themselves talk (or more accurately, see themselves post.)

[_SatanWasSetUp]

I wanted so badly to counter with a definition from an online Urban Dictionary of

"attention slut."

That's how he came off to me. Someone cravenly seeking attention no matter how pathetically embarrassing his actions/words were. "Look at me! Look at me!"

That's my impression of Steve Benson.

Gosh Jersey girl, that's my impression of you. My impression of Steve is that he's intelligent, extremely logical and articulate. It's amazing how perceptions can differ.

Did Jersey Girl say he wasn't intelligent, logical and articulate. I agree he is all of those things, and I agree with a lot of what Steve Benson says. It's the way he behaves that turns people off. Being intelligent and articulate doesn't prevent him from also being an attention craving asshole.

[_Mercury]

Hey Satan,

Congratulations. You're opening post has made it's way into Doc Peterson's signature on MAaD.

Sheesh. That was quick. Does that guy do anything other than browse message boards? You would think he would be busy with work. Between him and Benson, there must be about 4000 man hours spent posting on message boards. Those two love to hear themselves talk (or more accurately, see themselves post.)

He is too busy not getting published.

that's right Dan, I said it. I said it because your a tool.

[_beastie]

Marg,

I guess you missed all the posts that talked about the psychological problems of people who believed in the PF theory, as well as the rampant speculation that Dan was some sort of closet believer wanna-be.

There are definitely some people over on RFM that considered PF fairly and dismissed it due to lack of evidence. However, there are also some vocal posters over there who admitted that they can't stand to even consider the theory because it smacks of "excusing" Smith's behavior.

The irony is that none of these people had even read his book, and just expected him to be able to fairly explain his theory when he was being jumped on by multiple posters, often in a personal and ugly way. I was surprised he stuck around at all. I think the episode was an embarrassment to RFM. Steve continues to create new posts about the topic, trying to pull in people who would rather let the whole episode fade. I was extremely disappointed in him. What a let down.

In regards to my own behavior, yes, I will respond in kind when people get nasty.

But look at the example you cited: The article I shared was written by outsiders who had studied the phenomenon and had concluded that assuming the religious leader truly believed his/her own teachers ought to be the default setting, because they so often do, despite how their behavior looks to outsiders. Steve's only response: "Smith was an irreligious and insincere reprobate, anything but personally pious and everything fraudulent. New Testament "

"No Text". Not even the slightest attempt to deal with the information, just another absolutist statement. Yet I'm supposed to respond in some meaningful way????

[_beastie]

Did Jersey Girl say he wasn't intelligent, logical and articulate. I agree he is all of those things, and I agree with a lot of what Steve Benson says. It's the way he behaves that turns people off. Being intelligent and articulate doesn't prevent him from also being an attention craving asshole.

clearly he is intelligent and articulate. That is why I was so disappointed by his behavior.

I think it went beyond attention craving into frankly strange. I wish I had kept count of how many threads he was starting about the exact same topic, over and over. I remember seeing about five threads he started on the first page all about the very same topic, sometimes repeating the same information with very little variance. It started to look like some odd tic, or OCD behavior.

I know you can't draw many valid conclusions about people based on internet board interactions, but my reaction to his behavior was: dude, get help!

[_marg]

Marg,

I guess you missed all the posts that talked about the psychological problems of people who believed in the PF theory, as well as the rampant speculation that Dan was some sort of closet believer wanna-be.

I read quite a few posts last night, not sure if I read the ones you are talking about. Are they still available to be read and if so can you give me an indication of which thread? In general I found Steve's post to be spot on, with whomever he was responding to. I came across a post or two of Dan's, in response to Steve which seemed to me to be evasive.

There are definitely some people over on RFM that considered PF fairly and dismissed it due to lack of evidence. However, there are also some vocal posters over there who admitted that they can't stand to even consider the theory because it smacks of "excusing" Smith's behavior.

The irony is that none of these people had even read his book, and just expected him to be able to fairly explain his theory when he was being jumped on by multiple posters, often in a personal and ugly way. I was surprised he stuck around at all. I think the episode was an embarrassment to RFM. Steve continues to create new posts about the topic, trying to pull in people who would rather let the whole episode fade. I was extremely disappointed in him. What a let down.

Since the focus of this thread is about Steve and not other posters there, again my impression from reading his posts is that he made good valid points.

In regards to my own behavior, yes, I will respond in kind when people get nasty.

Well, Steve in his response in your thread was not being nasty. When was he nasty to you, before or after you started attacking him?

But look at the example you cited: The article I shared was written by outsiders who had studied the phenomenon and had concluded that assuming the religious leader truly believed his/her own teachers ought to be the default setting, because they so often do, despite how their behavior looks to outsiders. Steve's only response: "Smith was an irreligious and insincere reprobate, anything but personally pious and everything fraudulent. New Testament "

You are right that was his only response to your initial post, but it was not a personal attack on you, whereas you took a deliberate pot shot at him.

"No Text". Not even the slightest attempt to deal with the information, just another absolutist statement. Yet I'm supposed to respond in some meaningful way????

Well, you have other choices than attacking him in a seeming attempt to shut him up, or put him on the defensive of having to counter or defend himself. You can ignore his post and let it stand on its own merit for the reader to judge or you can respond that he hasn't addressed the contents of the quote.

[_marg]

Did Jersey Girl say he wasn't intelligent, logical and articulate.

Yes basically. It's what her post inferred.

So anyway, I decided to go a few rounds with Benson on those threads. I simply asked him to be specific in his words. My initial complaint was that the information he quoted that (I think) was provided by Deconstructor constituted "evidence" and not "proof". He apparently didn't appreciate the correction.

I challenged his statement that Joseph Smith had sex with underage girls. On the thread in question, Steve used that specific phrase and others were running it up the flagpole as "statutory rape".

So I asked Steve to post the legal age of consent in that time period, I later asked him to supply the criteria for statutory rape.

He couldn't do either. Who did?

Dan Vogel.

Throughout my exchanges with Benson, instead of answering on point, he was reduced to throwing out juvenile one-liners. I about died when I saw a poster use the phrase "I know you are but what am I" in a thread title to describe Benson's lack of rejoinder because just seconds before that I started to write the same thing and didn't post the comment. I thought my post actually posted!

I agree he is all of those things, and I agree with a lot of what Steve Benson says. It's the way he behaves that turns people off. Being intelligent and articulate doesn't prevent him from also being an attention craving asshole.

I didn't argue against "attention craving asshole" but I will. Just because someone posts frequently, or is outspoken on a message board does not make them "attention craving". I find people "attention craving" on MB's when they rarely if ever make points on topic, but like to be seen/heard seemingly for the sake of it. That's not how Steve comes across to me. As far as "asshole" goes well that's an opinion which I don't share. by the way, just so you know I don't post on RFM, nor have I ever been Mormon or belonged to any religion. I've taken a bit of interest in Mormonism and am an observer of this board and occasionally others.

[_marg]

Beastie

The irony is that none of these people had even read his book, and just expected him to be able to fairly explain his theory when he was being jumped on by multiple posters, often in a personal and ugly way.

Beastie, I haven't read his book, but I seem to remember him saying that the "pious fraud" idea is an insignificant part of the book. I do have the book and did read the pages which addressed "pious fraud".

When this discussion was going on many months back in which you participated as did Dan, I remember Craig Criddle asking Dan if he'd like to argue/discuss the Spalding/Rigdon theory with him. Dan's response was along the lines that he was not fully informed to be able to debate/discuss it with Craig. He deferred to others knowledgeable on the theory in basing his rejection of it(I believe 2 individuals but don't remember their names).

If Rigdon was the main mastermind behind the Book of Mormon and start-up of Mormonism that would put a large kink in the Smith "pious fraud" theory. As knowledgable as Dan is on Mormonism and Smith, if he isn't fully knowledgable on the Rigdon/Spalding theory he lacks a vital component affecting the Smith "pious fraud" theory.

[_Jersey Girl]

Did Jersey Girl say he wasn't intelligent, logical and articulate.

Yes basically. It's what her post inferred.

So anyway, I decided to go a few rounds with Benson on those threads. I simply asked him to be specific in his words. My initial complaint was that the information he quoted that (I think) was provided by Deconstructor constituted "evidence" and not "proof". He apparently didn't appreciate the correction.

I challenged his statement that Joseph Smith had sex with underage girls. On the thread in question, Steve used that specific phrase and others were running it up the flagpole as "statutory rape".

So I asked Steve to post the legal age of consent in that time period, I later asked him to supply the criteria for statutory rape.

He couldn't do either. Who did?

Dan Vogel.

Throughout my exchanges with Benson, instead of answering on point, he was reduced to throwing out juvenile one-liners. I about died when I saw a poster use the phrase "I know you are but what am I" in a thread title to describe Benson's lack of rejoinder because just seconds before that I started to write the same thing and didn't post the comment. I thought my post actually posted!

marg,

Nowhere in my comments did I "infer" or otherwise state that Benson was unintelligent or anything at all to that effect. I described his interaction. You posted that description in the above. Benson created a scene on RFM wherein he compulsively threw out junvenile one liners instead of answering questions or meeting requests for evidence. When one thread was locked, he created another and did so repeatedly. Posters on RFM were protesting his activity. That's exactly why the OP posted this thread and others have commented in similar ways describing his conduct. Understand?

Just a few posts above this one, beastie described Benson's conduct in this way (bold mine)

"I think it went beyond attention craving into frankly strange. I wish I had kept count of how many threads he was starting about the exact same topic, over and over. I remember seeing about five threads he started on the first page all about the very same topic, sometimes repeating the same information with very little variance. It started to look like some odd tic, or OCD behavior."

Those are accurate descriptions of his conduct, marg, they are not a statement about his intelligence. The thread in question (and it's subsequent offspring) no longer appears on RFM, though a few remnants remain. You couldn't have read it and therefore, lacking context, do not understand the totality of what went on.

One day this week, I looked in on RFM and saw a post made by Shades near the top of the front page requesting stories from posters who were banned from FAIR/MAD. The very first reply was another shot at Dan Vogel made by Steve Benson. The thread was deleted after the second reply.

Next time around, marg, ask me if I think a person is unintelligent before you jump to rash conclusions. Had you done so here, I would have said nearly the same thing that I stated in the post of mine that you chopped to bits here. I have no previous experience with Steve Benson and have no testimony of his intelligence or lack thereof.

I simply reported what went on in my attempts to engage him.

Jersey Girl

[_beastie]

Marg,

Perhaps Bob McCue's observations will be more persuasive to you than ours:

http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agora/ ... b_recovery

And no, none of the earliest threads are still on the board.

There are some personalities on the RFM board that seem to believe that if an exmo' does not adhere to the same "party line" as he/she, then that exmo is suspect. It's kind of like the FAIR/MAD mentality that attacks unsuspecting believers who wander on the board and ask the "wrong" question.

An example: I do not believe Joseph Smith had sex with Helen Mar. I've been open about this opinion on this board, and I was open about my opinion on RFM a few months ago when the topic came up (in connection to whether or not it was appropriate to call Joseph Smith a pedophile). I just do not believe there is adequate evidence to strongly support that conclusion, and I believe evidence exists that would logically call that assumption into question. When I expressed this opinion on RFM, I was attacked - yes, attacked, personally. Cabbie was the ring leader in that particular episode. He said I was a closet believer, just waiting for the right time to bear my testimony. He said I was psychologically damaged from bringing brought up as a self loathing female Mormon (by the way, I converted at the age of 19 and was brought up in a female/strong household). He said I was likely the product of incest. I can't prove this, because the posts are long gone. But there are others here who may remember the episode. I am not exaggerating.

So when I saw Dan Vogel being subjected to comments such as "you have a secret longing for sacrament bread" or Steve's insinuation he was some sort of "apologist", and that the theory was only suitable for "conspiracy theorists" who can't let go of Mormonism, my hackles were raised again. So I probably did react defensively, but, in my opinion, some of these people act like flaming idiots.