Steve Benson's bizarre behavior on the RfM board

[_beastie]

Yes, skippy, you're still special... maybe even a special spirit.... especially since you ignored the post where I already sang your praises right before the one you posted and TOLD you it worked (snicker)

see, I had to call you on that one because you smacked me down on the beyotch thing

(drat!! As always, I'm not as cool as I had hoped...I should have learned that by now, my teenage daughter is pretty insistent on that point)

[_marg]

Jersey Girl

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.

You didn’t “simply” report what went on, you made Steve out as a moron who didn’t understand the concept of “proof” so you had to explain it to him and he was unable to answer your questions.

Perhaps Steve wasn’t focused on or interested in your question of legal age of rape at the time in Illinois. Perhaps by underage Steve meant maturity level. Perhaps it wasn’t a matter of Steve “couldn’t answer” your question but that it wasn’t important to the issue of his point, so why should he.

Trust me, Jersey Girl, I read your post, and you inferred Steve was unintelligent. But that wasn’t even my main point in my initial post to you in this thread. My main point is that unlike you Steve does not come across as an attention seeker on the MB's. He I view as passionate about Mormonism and hence may appear to some as attention seeking when arguing against it, but self promotion or ego stroking does not appear to me to be his purpose.

[_harmony]

Jersey Girl

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.

You didn’t “simply” report what went on, you made Steve out as a moron who didn’t understand the concept of “proof” so you had to explain it to him and he was unable to answer your questions.

Perhaps Steve wasn’t focused on or interested in your question of legal age of rape at the time in Illinois. Perhaps by underage Steve meant maturity level. Perhaps it wasn’t a matter of Steve “couldn’t answer” your question but that it wasn’t important to the issue of his point, so why should he.

Trust me, Jersey Girl, I read your post, and you inferred Steve was unintelligent. But that wasn’t even my main point in my initial post to you in this thread. My main point is that unlike you Steve does not come across as an attention seeker on the MB's. He I view as passionate about Mormonism and hence may appear to some as attention seeking when arguing against it, but self promotion or ego stroking does not appear to me to be his purpose.

Maybe we should invite Steve to come here. Or is he like Daniel: too chicken?

[_marg]

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.

Apparently D. Vogel didn’t post on theRFM board with the intent of debating/discussing whether or not J.Smith was a “pious fraud”, but others forced him into that debate. Smith as “pious fraud” is his position, it’s in his book (an insignificant aspect of it) and he’s not backed away from this position so far in discussions on MB’s. He also knows the overall general sentiment of vocal RFMers are dead set against PF theory, so given his position and experience there isn’t much point for him to continue discussing it there. As I said previously though, when Craig Criddle many months back offered to discuss the Rigdon/Spalding theory with Dan and by the way, Craig would have conducted it with the utmost respect for Dan, I know this because I’ve observed Craig over the years on another board, Dan backed away. His response to Craig indicated a less than objective attitude towards other theories that Smith as sole author of the Book of Mormon.

I think most people if not all, respect Dan for his research, his writing abilities, his gentlemanly conduct in discussions, but they aren’t completely sold on him being open to objectively looking at all the data which could impact the Smith as pious fraud theory. And the question is why isn’t he open to all the data? Why does he defer to others on the Rigdon-Spalding theory, given his position of being a researcher/historian in Mormonism? I can understand why people such as Steve would refer to him as an apologist. Dan seems more interested in holding a position of being a moderate with regards to Smith than of where the evidence leads to. And this is understandable. By being moderate he has a greater chance of being tolerated and heard by the Mormon community and apologists, than someone who takes a harsher position with regards to J. Smith. And one can not persuade anyone, unless one can get them to listen.

So Dan and Steve’s objectives are in my view different. Steve doesn’tseem to care about persuading Mormon apologists. He seems interested in where the evidence leads to or “truth” rather than in persuading the other side using tactics. Dan has a vested interested in being heard via his book. He would lose a large potential audience if he didn’t offer a moderate view which leaves open the possibility of Smith being sincere.

So the objectives one has makes a difference in the approach one should or needs to take in discussion. If the objective is persuasion then “truth” and/or harshness is not the best tactic to take when arguing with the other side. If “truth” is one’s main objective then substance and evidence not process or how one argues is what is primarily important.

I think while there is little toleration for anything said pro Mormonism on the RFM board, I also think on this particular issue of “pious fraud” that there has been an attempt by those who considerthe possibility that Smith may have been a sincere individual and “pious fraud” to dismiss critics of the Pious fraud theory as..extreme, closed minded,intolerant, irrational, angry, unable to objectively evaluate J. Smith because of emotional baggage. That is arguing against critics fallaciously using ad hominem. In otherwords the argument being made is that the critic’s argument against the pious fraud theory should be dismissed because they are too angry and emotional to be objective about J. Smith. While that might be the case, I don’t think it is. I think the critics are being fair and objective, regarding the Smith as pious fraud. But they see the evidence differently. If Smith wasn’t the originator and main author of the Book of Mormon that sheds a whole new perspective on the Smith as pious fraud theory. That Vogel doesn’t wish to discuss the Rigdon Spalding theory is an indication that he is the one less than objective and unwilling to let the evidence lead him, not the critic who has evaluated the Rigdon Spalding theory.

by the way I read McCue’s post which you suggested. I understand his point and that gets to what one’s objectives are which I addressed above. If the objective of the RFM board is to encourage posters such as Dan, if it is to be persuasive to all who go there Mormons included..then diplomatic tactics are necessary.and .”truth” is not the main goal. I’m not convinced Dan was disrespected by Steve. I think because Steve is persistent, passionat eand very much interested in truth his posts may come across as being disrespectful to his opposition.

[_beastie]

Your post screams of bias, marg. You have assumed - without a shred of justification - that Dan has created a "moderate" theory (moderate? how does stating a religious fraud believed his own teachings equate a "moderate" theory?) with an eye to somehow appealing to apologists. Steve, OTOH, is just looking for the truth.

That is the exact attitude presented on RFM. Do you really not see the slightest problem with it?

You know, some people on RFM responded to me that they disliked the PF theory because they felt it gave Smith an "out", or may encourage believers. THAT is an attitude that leads to looking for a theory that pleases you in some way, or suits your purposes, rather than just looking for the truth.

[_Jersey Girl]

Jersey Girl

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.

You didn’t “simply” report what went on, you made Steve out as a moron who didn’t understand the concept of “proof” so you had to explain it to him and he was unable to answer your questions.

Perhaps Steve wasn’t focused on or interested in your question of legal age of rape at the time in Illinois. Perhaps by underage Steve meant maturity level. Perhaps it wasn’t a matter of Steve “couldn’t answer” your question but that it wasn’t important to the issue of his point, so why should he.

Trust me, Jersey Girl, I read your post, and you inferred Steve was unintelligent. But that wasn’t even my main point in my initial post to you in this thread. My main point is that unlike you Steve does not come across as an attention seeker on the MB's. He I view as passionate about Mormonism and hence may appear to some as attention seeking when arguing against it, but self promotion or ego stroking does not appear to me to be his purpose.

marg.

I and others have reported the nature of Benson's behavior. Benson was questioned by myself and others, and for whatever reasons chose not to respond on point. The threads are no longer viewable and whatever past interactions on Benson's part you use to evaluate a series of incidents to which you were neither participant nor onlooker, do not apply to these particular events. I don't plan to entertain your comments further while you attempt to b***s*** your way through something you have no first hand knowledge of.

Jersey Girl

[_beastie]

The reason I linked to the Bob McCue thread wasn't to debate whether or not civil discourse is preferable to "persuade", which is his main point, but to demonstrate that even Bob found Steve's behavior unacceptable. Clearly our reaction was not abnormal and based on some bias against Steve.

There is just no way around it, in my opinion. His behavior during that period was really strange. Why the heck start so many threads about the same topic within hours of one another? I don't care how articulate and intelligent a person is, when they engage in that sort of obsessive behavior, usually it means something's up. (that has nothing to do with the "target" of the obsessive behavior)

[_marg]

The reason I linked to the Bob McCue thread wasn't to debate whether or not civil discourse is preferable to "persuade", which is his main point, but to demonstrate that even Bob found Steve's behavior unacceptable. Clearly our reaction was not abnormal and based on some bias against Steve.

Bob said "I happen to disagree with the way Steve treated Dan. He could've made his argument in a fashion which would have led to useful debate instead of closing debate."

He didn't say Steve's treatment of Dan was bizarre, or that he was an asshole, a prick, or an attention slut etc. He didn't rag on Steve or RFM as some have done in this thread.

And I'm sure he's right. Process (of debate)does make a difference if one wants to encourage participation on RFM.

But as Randy J pointed out there is a reason the RFM board is not tolerant of pro Mormon sympathies.

Randy J.

Lemme clue you in to what's happening here, Dan: This BB is for recovery from Mormonism, not for debating its merits or the morals of its leaders. Eric K. and his helpers have worked very hard for a decade to keep RFM as an "apologist-free zone." Several Mopologists have tried to invade this BB over the years and either take it over or shut it down (you would recognize their names.) One method they have used is to come here and play "devil's advocate" or to pretend to seek "fair and balanced debate" in order to disrupt the mission of the forum. So when someone like you comes here and makes comments which sound sympathetic to Smith or the church, you're going to get a backlash.

To which Dan replied:

Well, I guess I understand that. Frankly, I would have been gone by now if I hadn't been attacked. I don't find the average topic interesting.

Beastie

There is just no way around it, in my opinion. His behavior during that period was really strange. Why the heck start so many threads about the same topic within hours of one another? I don't care how articulate and intelligent a person is, when they engage in that sort of obsessive behavior, usually it means something's up. (that has nothing to do with the "target" of the obsessive behavior)

Well I did notice in posts that Dan was evasive with his replies. Perhaps Steve wasn't going to let him get away with that and used persistence as a tactic.

[_beastie]

Given the fact that, by your own admission, you haven't read the earlier threads, I think your opinion on what Dan or Steve did or did not do is irrelevant.

[_moksha]

Marg, do you find Dan Vogel in any way to be a Mormon Apologist?