Plutarch Wants to Debate McCue or Bachman

[_Tal Bachman]

Ray

I hope it is okay if I am honest with you. I tried being polite with Plutarch, but nothing seemed to register until I was frank.

After reading all your comments above, I think there are some important points you are misunderstanding. But maybe that is only to be expected from someone who, by his own account, was so unengaged emotionally with Mormonism, that he never even had any period of grieving or recovery.

Your recommendations about RFM posting sound ridiculous for one main reason. Here's a hint: it's called a "Recovery from Mormonism" board, rather than a "let's try to deconvert Mormons" board. See? No one on RFM could possibly care less whether their pop-offs, or jokes, or anything else, "offend" Mormons, because trying to communicate with Mormons, or deconvert them, or anything else having to do with Mormons, is not in any way the point of the Recovery from Mormonism board. No one cares, because in that moment of terror and anxiety and sorrow and indignation, they shouldn't. What they should be worried about is making sense of their own experience, talking to others, whatever - trying to orient themselves after a totally disorienting blow. The Recovery from Mormonism board isn't about discussing Joseph Smith's weird cult of self-aggrandizement with those who continue to be fooled by his outrageous tales AT ALL, and neither I contend should it even be thought of as an indirect vehicle for "talking to other Mormons". Who the hell cares about that in that terrible moment of crisis - which by your own account you don't even have any idea about? Recovery efforts are about getting together with others who are still reeling from the discovery that those tales were false. Your comments sound as ignorant as would those of someone who earnestly recommended that battered wives in a women's shelter begin using more diplomatic language when discussing their experiences, on grounds that some of the battering husbands or their friends might be outside eavesdropping and "get offended". OPEN YOUR EYES, RAY.

Perhaps that analogy too will strike you as overwrought, but I suggest that says more about you, than about Mormonism. Joseph Smith, as you well know, or at least should know, was in many ways an abusive man. He abused the trust of others prior to starting his church, abused the trust of his own wife, abused the trust of his friends, abused the trust of the females he knew and took advantage of sexually, and the organization which he started has to some degree inherited that legacy. You seem to think that pointing out that the abuser - in this case, Joseph's church - isn't 100% bad, is some sort of novel and ethically requisite gesture. In fact, it completely goes without saying (rather like your other non-insight masquerading as an insight, that exmos don't realize that they too once believed the nonsense). Every abuser has some fine qualities. Every abuser does some nice things. So what? Are we supposed to then spend 50% of our time talking about how great the Autobahn was, or how David Koresh was a great guitar player or a wonderful baby-sitter? You know? The Mormon church abuses the trust of its members every single day it refuses to open its archives, refuses to acknowledge in its popular magazines facts relevant to Joseph's stories, makes members feel guilty for not doing more than they can, etc., etc., etc. My dear friends in Argentina, where I served a mission, are going to bed hungry so they can pay tithing to a church which is a patent fraud, and which is in so little need of the money that could have fed five little hungry children dinner, that they're buying and operationg radio stations, TV stations, cattle ranches, insurance companies, beverage distribution companies, etc. And they spent one BILLION dollars on a shopping mall last year. One BILLION.

If you find the language used by grieving people discussing their experiences in a fraudulent cult so incompatible with the maintenance of your preferred state - total moral indifference, a la Chauncy Gardner or a Richard G. Scott-style automaton - my brilliant advice to you is to stop eavesdropping on them. That's the same advice I'd give to the eavesdropping friends of wifebeaters who found the language of the runaway wives "offensive". I guess I would also suggest you stop making yourself look like an oblivious boor by trying to tell people how to grieve over the loss of everything they held most dear, when you yourself don't even have a clue what that's like. You're like someone who says, "hey, when a drunk driver killed my child, I never had a recovery period. Therefore, these other parents shouldn't be saying and doing what they're doing. Besides, think of all the good things these drunk drivers did...". You complain about others being offensive, but I suggest to you that your own comments far more merit that characterization, when this situation is viewed from a broader perspective.

On another point: You say, "two missionaries died because of what they believed in. You know, each to her/his own". You then go on, without even the merest sense of irony, as though you were half-blind, to draw an analogy with cigarettes, packs of which all present facts to those about to make an important decision about them. To speak frankly, I find your bland, morally-void glibness on this totally nauseating. Here's why: (And by the way, I'd love to see Plutarch get a read on your sense of ethics with these comments).

They died because of what they believed - but the point is, they believed what they believed, because they were deliberately deceived by self-styled "men of God" who care so little about their duties to their fellow men, that they'd rather young boys come home in coffins that simply tell the truth about their church. It does not speak well of you, that you either can't grasp this point, or are morally indifferent to it.

To explain: For your analogy to actually work, cigarrette companies would have to do what the church does, knowing full well what the consequences might be: conceal facts that those about to make an important decision deserve to know about. Or vice versa - to make it work, church leaders would have to stop lying through omission or commission about its history, wouldn't they? The church would have to stop apostles like Dallin Oaks from declaring that the church doesn't owe anyone "both sides of the story", or Packer from declaring that revealing the truth about the church "is not very useful", or its idiotic apologists from "defending our paradigm". That is SICK and totally immoral when people are dying for a religion that they very well would not have been willing to die for, if they had been given all the facts available about it by those they trust most in the world. By the way, would you really say in response, after a bunch of adults died after taking medication the side effects of which had been deliberately concealed by the company selling them, "to each his own"? No, you wouldn't - and you wouldn't, because their deaths would be largely due to them having been deceived by lies of omission. So why should you now offer up your own version of Cain's famous question when it comes to Joseph Smith's cult? As my Scottish grandmother used to say, fer shame.

Open your eyes, Ray. The church, like every other organization, owes its members all the facts it possess about its claims. And if they conceal them for their own interests, they are abusers of trust. And as abusers of trust, they bear responsibility for those who suffer or die as a result of their actions, just as a drug manufacturing company would if it concealed information about its drugs.

Open your eyes.

[_Ray A]

I hope it is okay if I am honest with you. I tried being polite with Plutarch, but nothing seemed to register until I was frank.

Be as honest as you like. I would not expect anything less.

After reading all your comments above, I think there are some important points you are misunderstanding. But maybe that is only to be expected from someone who, by his own account, was so unengaged emotionally with Mormonism, that he never even had any period of grieving or recovery.

No, that's incorrect. I said I was a TBM, and when I made these discoveries I cried. Is that honest enough for you? All of this eventually led to divorce and family disintegration, which is typical of many exmos. But I recovered without going into constant attack mode, and I did look at what I felt was good in Mormonism, and I did stay in the church for several years after my discoveries. And I did return several times as a "Liahona". The real shock hit me when I read Quinn's Dialogue article in 1985. I was totally floored, and immediately stopped attending for three months, because my faith in the leadership was lying dead on the floor in a thousand pieces.

Your recommendations about RFM posting sound ridiculous for one main reason. Here's a hint: it's called a "Recovery from Mormonism" board, rather than a "let's try to deconvert Mormons" board. See? No one on RFM could possibly care less whether their pop-offs, or jokes, or anything else, "offend" Mormons, because trying to communicate with Mormons, or deconvert them, or anything else having to do with Mormons, is not in any way the point of the Recovery from Mormonism board. No one cares, because in that moment of terror and anxiety and sorrow and indignation, they shouldn't. What they should be worried about is making sense of their own experience, talking to others, whatever - trying to orient themselves after a totally disorienting blow. The Recovery from Mormonism board isn't about discussing Joseph Smith's weird cult of self-aggrandizement with those who continue to be fooled by his outrageous tales AT ALL, and neither I contend should it even be thought of as an indirect vehicle for "talking to other Mormons". Who the hell cares about that in that terrible moment of crisis - which by your own account you don't even have any idea about? Recovery efforts are about getting together with others who are still reeling from the discovery that those tales were false. Your comments sound as ignorant as would those of someone who earnestly recommended that battered wives in a women's shelter begin using more diplomatic language when discussing their experiences, on grounds that some of the battering husbands or their friends might be outside eavesdropping and "get offended". OPEN YOUR EYES, RAY.

It was not my intention on RFM to "build faith". I naïvely thought people would understand why, in spite of my loss of faith, I still felt there was much good in Mormonism. I suppose because I went through my crises some 20 years earlier, and was not in constant anger mode, I misunderstood the sensitivities of others who had only just come out. So when I said anything even slightly positive about Mormonism I got clobbered. I thought this was paranoia. So I misread the anger on RFM. And it's still there.

The "battered wives" analogy is silly. I felt the pain of loss too, but I would never have compared myself to a battered wife. You have to deal with it, you know? Battered wives suffer both intentional physical and emotional abuse. It's not the same thing. Are you happy now that you're out of the church? In ten or twenty years you'll look back at these conversations and what I'm saying will make sense to you then. Hopefully, like me, you'll come to appreciate the church more, and be more forgiving. I was about the same age as you when I walked, and my life, despite all the problems and trials, has been pretty rich. So I have no anger at the church, it's just irrelevant to me as far as practicising is concerned. As I said, the anger came back through clashes on the net, yet ironically I had good Mormon friends in reality.

Perhaps that analogy too will strike you as overwrought, but I suggest that says more about you, than about Mormonism. Joseph Smith, as you well know, or at least should know, was in many ways an abusive man. He abused the trust of others prior to starting his church, abused the trust of his own wife, abused the trust of his friends, abused the trust of the females he knew and took advantage of sexually, and the organization which he started has to some degree inherited that legacy. You seem to think that pointing out that the abuser - in this case, Joseph's church - isn't 100% bad, is some sort of novel and ethically requisite gesture. In fact, it completely goes without saying (rather like your other non-insight masquerading as an insight, that exmos don't realize that they too once believed the nonsense). Every abuser has some fine qualities. Every abuser does some nice things. So what? Are we supposed to then spend 50% of our time talking about how great the Autobahn was, or how David Koresh was a great guitar player or a wonderful baby-sitter? You know? The Mormon church abuses the trust of its members every single day it refuses to open its archives, refuses to acknowledge in its popular magazines facts relevant to Joseph's stories, makes members feel guilty for not doing more than they can, etc., etc., etc. My dear friends in Argentina, where I served a mission, are going to bed hungry so they can pay tithing to a church which is a patent fraud, and which is in so little need of the money that could have fed five little hungry children dinner, that they're buying and operationg radio stations, TV stations, cattle ranches, insurance companies, beverage distribution companies, etc. And they spent one BILLION dollars on a shopping mall last year. One BILLION.

But what you're saying is true, even the worst killers have some good in them. Do you know of any mother who stopped loving her son convicted of murder? You're trying to make Joseph Smith out to be a fiend from hell, instead of just a weak human being who made some serious mistakes. If you know he wasn't and isn't a prophet, then isn't this to be expected? As far as I know there was no physical abuse of women, and he was not a paedophile like some Catholic priests. You're not suggesting that the church does no good at all, are you? It seems that way to me. Did the Crusades, the Inquisition, or incestuous, lying popes kill all the good that the Catholic Church has done in other areas? The RC church has done some pretty awful things, and those things where they continue today should be opposed, like its silly ideas about contraception and abortion. But in the 20 years I was Catholic I had no complaints. Maybe when Mormonism is 1,000 years old and more mature most of the problems will have died off.

I think it is bad that some Argentinean Mormons are going to bed hungry to pay tithing. I do find that disgusting, and always have. But Argentina is majority Catholic. And the pope wanted to excommunicate priests who taught "liberation theology" in Central and South America. Don't you think most of your anger should therefore be towards the influence Catholicism has had in Argentina? I guess you would say you're fighting the battle from your end of the spectrum. But remember, it is mainly political and other religious influence in Argentina which initially caused this, not Mormonism. If you want to make any "cult" charges here, you're going to have to direct it mainly at the Catholic church.
They are the ones who forbid contraception (not Mormons), and have no abortions under any circumstances (not Mormons), and who believe that suffering is "purifying" (not Mormons). If Mormonism was the majority religion in Argentina I doubt it would be the mess it now is. So once again, I don't agree with the tithing issue, and I'd like to know why bishops in Argentina allow LDS families to go hungry. I don't know anything of the background. There's a welfare plan put out by the church, in the welfare handbook given to all bishops, and it clearly states that the temporal welfare of members comes first. If the bishops are allowing this to happen on some "pay in faith" basis and "the blessings will come" then they are to blame, and the church leaders for not correcting this problem, if it still exists, since this was when you were on a mission. There's nothing "cultish" about this, because the church has made provisions for the temporal welfare of its members, and the US government was so impressed by "the cult's" welfare program that they studied it.

If you find the language used by grieving people discussing their experiences in a fraudulent cult so incompatible with the maintenance of your preferred state - total moral indifference, a la Chauncy Gardner or a Richard G. Scott-style automaton - my brilliant advice to you is to stop eavesdropping on them. That's the same advice I'd give to the eavesdropping friends of wifebeaters who found the language of the runaway wives "offensive". I guess I would also suggest you stop making yourself look like an oblivious boor by trying to tell people how to grieve over the loss of everything they held most dear, when you yourself don't even have a clue what that's like. You're like someone who says, "hey, when a drunk driver killed my child, I never had a recovery period. Therefore, these other parents shouldn't be saying and doing what they're doing. Besides, think of all the good things these drunk drivers did...". You complain about others being offensive, but I suggest to you that your own comments far more merit that characterization, when this situation is viewed from a broader perspective.

All assumptions. And as I've pointed out before, here and elsewhere, wrong assumptions. I have zilch influence on RFM, hardly visit it, and I have in numerous email correspondence over many years been helping exmos on an individual basis. You really want to know the kind of person I am, Tal? I'll give you just one example. In my later years just before I left the church a missionary confessed to me that he was gay. He said he felt terrible and had to tell someone, but could not tell the mission president or other members because he felt he would be misunderstood, but he said he knew I would be accepting of his sexuality. After he left his mission he corresponded with me for a long time, and he always thanked me for "understanding". When members have had doubts or left the church, who do you think was the first person they contacted? Because they wanted to know how I handled it, and they wanted me to help them in transition. And I would always tell them "anger is no solution". S*** Happens (better watch my swearing since coffeecat is the only one allowed to swear). That's life. If I counted the hours I've spent on the phone talking to members and ex-members with problems, it would probably be equal to all I did as a bishop. So, you don't know the real me, Tal. You don't know what I've done over the last 20 years.

On another point: You say, "two missionaries died because of what they believed in. You know, each to her/his own". You then go on, without even the merest sense of irony, as though you were half-blind, to draw an analogy with cigarettes, packs of which all present facts to those about to make an important decision about them. To speak frankly, I find your bland, morally-void glibness on this totally nauseating. Here's why: (And by the way, I'd love to see Plutarch get a read on your sense of ethics with these comments).

You missed my point. It was not about facts, it was about choices. My point was that some Mormons do not want to know! Many Mormons do know, but choose to remain Mormons and do not share your "it's a cult" viewpoint. I already gave an example in another thread about the lady who was a staunch Mormon who did not want to know what I had discovered. Remember? She told me "you don't understand, that's not why I stay". So my policy is to leave them alone, and IF they have questions they know where I am.

They died because of what they believed - but the point is, they believed what they believed, because they were deliberately deceived by self-styled "men of God" who care so little about their duties to their fellow men, that they'd rather young boys come home in coffins that simply tell the truth about their church. It does not speak well of you, that you either can't grasp this point, or are morally indifferent to it.

You say I don't understand your point of view, but do you understand that not all Mormons feel "deceived", even when they know MORE than what you know? What do you think FARMS is? A kindergarten? What do you think FAIR is? An LDS forum discussing how to have good family home evenings? They don't care what you think, Tal. Do you expect to jolt Wade, Pahoran or Plutarch out of their "stupor"?

To explain: For your analogy to actually work, cigarrette companies would have to do what the church does, knowing full well what the consequences might be: conceal facts that those about to make an important decision deserve to know about. Or vice versa - to make it work, church leaders would have to stop lying through omission or commission about its history, wouldn't they? The church would have to stop apostles like Dallin Oaks from declaring that the church doesn't owe anyone "both sides of the story", or Packer from declaring that revealing the truth about the church "is not very useful", or its idiotic apologists from "defending our paradigm". That is SICK and totally immoral when people are dying for a religion that they very well would not have been willing to die for, if they had been given all the facts available about it by those they trust most in the world. By the way, would you really say in response, after a bunch of adults died after taking medication the side effects of which had been deliberately concealed by the company selling them, "to each his own"? No, you wouldn't - and you wouldn't, because their deaths would be largely due to them having been deceived by lies of omission. So why should you now offer up your own version of Cain's famous question when it comes to Joseph Smith's cult? As my Scottish grandmother used to say, fer shame.

See above for my analogies about FARMS and FAIR. Undoubtedly many more Mormons will make an exit, but you know what? I think, like many already here, they will do it by reading Dialogue, Sunstone, church history, or even going on FAIR. I have no desire whatsoever to encourage them, nor to shake anyone's faith. When they are ready to question, or even lose faith, they will seek out the appropriate avenues.
The church could do more to make the facts known, for example by not portraying Joseph Smith on the official site as a monogamist. This is just to suit the church's current beliefs, but it is not historically accurate, and for inquiring investigators it's not right. I agree with you here. But again, my cigarette analogy was not about "facts", but "choices" and related to Mormons who either don't want to know, or who know and still want to be Mormons. It's their choice. Look at Quinn. He said he read volumes and volumes of church history in his teens, yet he remained a believing Mormon who has said that Joseph Smith was a prophet "just like Moses". You got a message for Quinn, Tal? You want to tell him he really belongs to a cult? You want to tell him he's brainwashed? Good luck.

Open your eyes, Ray. The church, like every other organization, owes its members all the facts it possess about its claims. And if they conceal them for their own interests, they are abusers of trust. And as abusers of trust, they bear responsibility for those who suffer or die as a result of their actions, just as a drug manufacturing company would if it concealed information about its drugs.

See above. But it is also the responsibility of the "buyer" to thoroughly check out what he/she is buying. Does a car dealer "owe" potential buyers the truth that some other make is better? Why did you not start studying all these facts earlier? And more to the point, why are you blaming the church for that?

[_Dr. Shades]

Dear Mods:

I was given this warning on this thread:

[MODERATOR NOTE: Please, please don't use the "S" word here in the Terrestrial Forum. If you must use that word, please do so in the Telestial Forum only. Thanks!]

Is the moderation here selective?

Absolutely not.

Have a look around the Terrestrial forum and see how the "F" word is being plastered every where by "coffeecat". Does she have some kind of poster immunity?

I've found and nixed a couple of those, too, and I was none too pleased. I made the same request to her, too.

Of course, if you say it's "plastered everywhere," then it's entirely possible that I missed a few instances. Rest assured that I'd like to never see the "F" or "S" words in the Terrestrial (or Celestial) Forums, no matter who posts it.

I'm not trying to be a prude; this is merely what the board members wanted last time around.

[_asbestosman]

Of course, if you say it's "plastered everywhere," then it's entirely possible that I missed a few instances. Rest assured that I'd like to never see the "F" or "S" words in the Terrestrial (or Celestial) Forums, no matter who posts it.

I'm not trying to be a prude; this is merely what the board members wanted last time around.

Thanks, *hades. *ometimes you're more *riendly than *iendish.

I appreciate it anyhow.

[_Ray A]

Absolutely not.

I've found and nixed a couple of those, too, and I was none too pleased. I made the same request to her, too.

Of course, if you say it's "plastered everywhere," then it's entirely possible that I missed a few instances. Rest assured that I'd like to never see the "F" or "S" words in the Terrestrial (or Celestial) Forums, no matter who posts it.

I'm not trying to be a prude; this is merely what the board members wanted last time around.

Thanks for the clarifications, Shades. I don't mind the rule, and I know you don't have all-seeing eyes. Was just wondering.

[Anonymous]

And I see no reason for a debate on any subject connected to the church between Plutarch and Tal, unless they both like to waste time. Because that's what this debate would be: a complete waste of time.

I disagree. I think people debate issues all the time from polar opposite ends of the spectrum. That's the idea, to hash out the issue in the open. If nobody else comes forward, I'll take your challenge Plutarch, and I'm a nobody. Name the time and place. I'm no coward. I'd love to debate a staunch believer. I'm a NOM, hopefully that would suit your taste for a worthy opponent. I'm no McCue or Bachman, but I can hold my own. Think up a topic, think up the word limit, and let's go.

As I scrolled up the thread I see that Rollo Tomasi and Phaedrus_ut have both challenged you, without any response. Judging by that, I don't expect you to respond to my challenge. Rest assured I would be a worthy, if unknown, opponent. Perhaps fame is all you seek, and not truth. If that's the case, it is indeed a correct decision on Tal's part to avoid a meaningless debate with you, and on Bob's part, to not even respond to your request. Good luck in your future endeavors.

[_beastie]

This has been a very interesting conversation which I've been following off and on, but just now took the time to read all the posts. (although I admit I am giving it a rushed reading since my own computer has completely, finally died and I'm borrowing my daughter's, so forgive me if I misread something)

For me, part of this conversation is just about religion in general. I talk specifically about Mormonism because it is the religion I know best, I don't have to learn any new language, I don't have to constantly fill in background information for conversations to make sense. Just in case anyone hasn't heard me say it umpteen million times, I'm an atheist. If I'm being technically careful, I say "agnostic atheist", because I don't believe it would be possible to reliably know information about a supernatural being even if it existed, but atheist because I have zero believe in any supernatural phenomenon, including a godbeing. So in my view ALL religion is manmade. Atlhough I love Richard Dawkins and am currently enjoying his new (autographed!) book The God Delusion, I am definitely on the fence in regards to the underlying question I see on this thread - not just about Mormonism, but about religion in general. And that is, of course, would human beings be better off without religion, or worse?

I have long since concluded that the reason religion is nearly universal in human beings is because it is evolutionarily useful. in my opinion, it is deeply embedded in the tribal instinct, and my shorthand view of religion is that it is an expression of the human instinct to divide into tribes, as well as the human drive to understand the world and our place in it. If religion were to disappear tomorrow, something new would immediately replace it, and have almost the same elements as religion. (the desire to control that which is beyond our control, which gets expressed in various ways, but notably, in our discussion, through ceremony, ritual, and prayer, and the desire to form into smaller tribal units that contain loyalty demonstrations)

Mormonism is unusually interesting not only because it was MY religion - the religion of my choice and heart, the only religion I encountered that became engrained in my life (which does not contradict the reality that I was not a happy Mormon, I tend to be a bit of a perfectionist anyway, and someone like that does NOT need to be encouraged to actually think perfection is a reasonable goal in some future form, and I was never a molly Mormon type of gal) - but Mormonism made sense to me in a way that the traditional protestantism I had been raised in did not. But more importantly it is interesting because it is a NEW religion, and was born during the age of the printing press. So we have more EVIDENCE to dig around in. I only wish we had that kind of evidence for early Christianty. But you know what I think? If we did, it would probably look just as "interesting" as early Mormonism. Why? Because it takes a certain type of person to succcessfully create a religion that MAKES IT. Most are a dime a dozen and die within years. (although I think Mormonism might have died if Joseph Smith had survived, frankly) But what kind person inspires people to believe in stories that, viewed objectively, are simply unbelievable? A powerful, charismatic person, that's who. And that type of personality almost always ends up including the tendency to take advantage of that power. in my opinion, it's because that type of personality ITSELF exists in ORDER to attain power - the power to have more success in terms of survival and reproduction, and isn't that always what the later abuse entails? More women (because these leaders are so often male, although not always), more money, more "things"? It's what evolution has programmed us for. I vaguely remember my favorite author, Robert Wright, comment in bemusement that Bill Clinton, during the Lewinski scandal, was being beat up for being what made him who he was in the first place - one of those alpha males that "goes for it". And why do alpha males "go for it"? The same motivation the rest of us have instinctually. (unless we move ourselves to a place where we can objectively evaluate these instincts and decide which we want, long term, and which we don't - knowledge is power)

Anyway obviously I am starting to ramble. But part of what RFMers - and I - criticize Joseph Smith for is what I would imagine almost every religious leader (by which I mean the fellow that started the whole religion, not necessarily subsequent leaders) engaged in, although he may have been lucky enough to not live during the time of the printing press. IE - being an alpha male and taking it "too far". It plagues them all.

But the religion they create becomes a living entity that survives, and evolves, long past the time of the radical, even nutty, new leader. And those same religions sometimes DO seem to benefit the lives of its members, despite the fact that the founding leader may have been, like almost all other founding leaders, a bit of a power-hungry skirt chaser.

Religions evolve. They change. Today's Mormonism has very little in common with early Mormonism. Early Mormonism, frankly, probably could be described as a "cult" in the pejorative sense of the word. Those followers really DID have to decide whether to follow the prophet when he was asking them to engage behavior they instinctively found immoral. They WERE asked to suspend their own sense of moral probity.

But are today's members really asked to do the same?

Not really. Yes, Mormonism IS a very demanding religion, and it undeniably demands - or asks - more of its members than many other religions. Some of what is asks is probably somewhat potentially destructive, like the financial sacrifice, the females/minority/homosexual "problems". But, hey, a lot of that comes from PATRIARCHY itself, and Mormonism is just one manifestation of that. But some of it is good. If you can avoid the overeating trap, Mormonism encourages some healthy life style choices. I doubt I would have had the strength to quit smoking without it. It does encourage parental responsibility and invovlement - and as a public school teacher, I can tell you that is a quality I wish many more people would have.

Look, any group formed by human beings is going to have some really nasty history behind it. It's just the nature of the beast. Look at the history of the US. Wow. Think about it hard enough and it's easy to be ashamed of some of the things we've done (yes, the rightwingnuts may now call me "american hater" because I recognize that we truly violated , enslaved, and killed mass numbers of people to get what we wanted, like any other powerful country on the earth).

Ok, my daughter is on her way home and going to kick me off her computer, so I have to wrap this up. I really rambled, and didn't even finish what I wanted to say: some of the yucky stuff about Mormonism is part of the human tribal experience. No, I'm not praising it, but I don't think it is fair to present it as that much worse - or even different - than any other tribal unit. And yes, I find many of the things Joseph Smith did disgusting. I am even more bothered by the "swamp thing" event (Joseph Smith knowingly trying to sell unhealthy swamp land to new converts to save the church's financial butt) than I am by his polygyny, which is bad enough. And yes, I absolutely understand the need to vent after the initial SHOCK of learning this stuff, and then the ANGER of being told by believers that the only reason you didn't know this stinky stuff all along is because of your own shortcomings....and a lot of what happens on RFM is that type of venting, and although some long timers stay around for a long time, by far most of those people turn over at a quick rate. I have lurked/alternatively posted over there since it first began, and recognize very few names from years ago. AND the names I recognize are often the most moderate voices, NOT the angriest (so I disagree with that point of yours, Ray, although I think it does support your other point, which is that the anger mellows over time and becomes more balanced)

There are some very vocal voices on RFM that demand a "party line" and attack anyone who strays from it. I have definitely experienced that over there because I DO try to be balanced, and will not follow a party line just because the crowd wants it (You may remember, Tal, that I have posted criticisms over there about calling Joseph Smith a pedophile, and have posted that I do not believe he actually had sex with Helen Mar, and for that one thing, was called quite a few names by some of the "vocal voices" who demand the party line - I post over there as Trixie, by the way). But there are far more people over there who really are just trying to process a painful event that they are often not allowed to talk to about with anyone in REAL LIFE. They have to, you know, "shut up and sing" in real life. That is extraordinarily painful, so the venting makes sense to me.

At any rate, my time's up. Sorry for the rambling, but the thread has provoked a lot of thoughts in me that I often can't quite figure out. Religion? Good? Bad? Hmmm. Back to Richard Dawkins, I heard my daughter's car door slam.

[_Ray A]

Thanks for your post, beastie, and as usual a voice of reason. You mentioned some things I wanted to mention but forgot. For example that Mormonism today is not the same as early Mormonism, and in the early days it could certainly have been considered a cult, just like Christianity.

Regarding the venting on RFM, for short term relief, I can understand it, after all I'd be hypocritical since I was there myself in 2002. But I could not hang around in that atmosphere. My unanswered question, and I don't even know if it can be answred except through anecdotal evidence, is does this really help people to recover? Or does it make some even more mad at the church? I know you're one of the more level-headed posters on RFM, and I have no problem with people like yourself, but I think you know the sort of poster I totally dislike, the one who called you those awful names and made the most revolting insinuations about you. I felt like vomiting after I read that. And unfortunately, this is my "stereotype" of RFM, and from my own later experiences there. But then, you keep going back, so obviously you must see worth in it. Being a long time exmo also helps give a more balanced perspective. But then, some have been out just as long as you and I have. Some of the posts are interesting, but too few for me to stick around too often.

[_Tal Bachman]

You'll have to pardon me, Ray. I thought you didn't have a recovery because you said on this very thread "my 'recovery' never took place. I walked away from the church of my own volition in 1987, therefore I didn't need to recover from anything. It was my choice to walk, it made me feel freer and happier. So why would I be angry??". I didn't seen anything about crying anywhere and so just took the quote above as an accurate description of a non-recovery.

The "battered wives" analogy is silly. I felt the pain of loss too, but I would never have compared myself to a battered wife. You have to deal with it, you know? Battered wives suffer both intentional physical and emotional abuse. It's not the same thing. Are you happy now that you're out of the church? In ten or twenty years you'll look back at these conversations and what I'm saying will make sense to you then. Hopefully, like me, you'll come to appreciate the church more, and be more forgiving. I was about the same age as you when I walked, and my life, despite all the problems and trials, has been pretty rich. So I have no anger at the church, it's just irrelevant to me as far as practicising is concerned. As I said, the anger came back through clashes on the net, yet ironically I had good Mormon friends in reality.

I don't know if I'm representative of other RFM regulars, but I don't know what ultimate point you're trying to make, other than one which strikes me as far more offensive than anything I find on RFM - that people grieving over the loss of everything they hold most dear "just aren't doing it right", because they're not doing it like you. You don't have anger at the church. Great. So what? How can anything be extrapolated from that? You sound shaken up because you got booted off the RFM board. Is that my problem? Perhaps you got booted off not so much because people are consumed by anger, but because they grew frustrated trying to reason with you when you seem incapable of understanding even the simplest arguments, and hell-bent on clinging on no matter what to the opinions you have. There's no problem with you believing what you want to believe, but just as you would find tiresome incessant attempts by 9/11 conspiracy theorists to tell you all about their theories without really considering any of your counterarguments, so would many people find dealing with your incomprehension tiresome. Is that so surprising? You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about the RFM board, but that doesn't really have anything to do with me, does it? I can see why people there would find you difficult to deal with, but I don't run the board, and frankly, I don't think it's where someone with your, shall we say, unique take on Mormonism really belongs.

But what you're saying is true, even the worst killers have some good in them. Do you know of any mother who stopped loving her son convicted of murder? You're trying to make Joseph Smith out to be a fiend from hell, instead of just a weak human being who made some serious mistakes. If you know he wasn't and isn't a prophet, then isn't this to be expected? As far as I know there was no physical abuse of women, and he was not a paedophile like some Catholic priests. You're not suggesting that the church does no good at all, are you? It seems that way to me. Did the Crusades, the Inquisition, or incestuous, lying popes kill all the good that the Catholic Church has done in other areas? The RC church has done some pretty awful things, and those things where they continue today should be opposed, like its silly ideas about contraception and abortion. But in the 20 years I was Catholic I had no complaints. Maybe when Mormonism is 1,000 years old and more mature most of the problems will have died off.

Sigh. Yes Ray, that's what I'm saying. I'm also saying that doesn't strike most people as a remarkable insight. Speaking of recovery, you don't seem very recovered at all. You seem to be playing over and over again in your head "the Mormon movie"...for some reason, desperate to view it as favourably as possibly, even when that requires some real distortion and moral indifference. But that's really your choice. I'm not even sure anymore why I'm in this conversation.

And by the way, I do find many of the actions of the Catholic church atrocious. So what? When one of your buddies says to another buddy, "hey, I like that watch", do you jump up and down and say, "What about everyone else's watches?!" Is there some kind of affirmative action policy on criticism of one fraudulent church, where you can't say anything unless you say something critical about every religion in the history of the earth? What's really eating you, Ray?

In response to my assertions that you didn't have a "recovery period", you wrote:

All assumptions. And as I've pointed out before, here and elsewhere, wrong assumptions.

Pop quiz: Can you guess why I made those assumptions? It's because someone named "Ray A" said on this very thread: "my 'recovery' never took place...I didn't need to recover from anything". Do I really need to make a comment?

By the way, I'm not a big fan of anger, either, and I've even written on RFM about coping with it. I would like to say, though, that your own posts here I find surprisingly irritating. Perhaps you mistook RFM anger toward your posts for anger toward the church. They seem very much detached from what I think to most people appear to be very relevant facts. I've corresponded with Midgley and Peterson, and neither of them were as irritating as you, even though I have no reason to doubt your assertion that you are a kind, sincere person, who helps Mormons. Good for you. Just don't show them any of your posts!

You missed my point. It was not about facts, it was about choices. My point was that some Mormons do not want to know! Many Mormons do know, but choose to remain Mormons and do not share your "it's a cult" viewpoint.

Amazing - more irritation! Ray, YOU are missing the point that their CHOICES are being shaped by a self-interested, deliberate manipulation of facts by a party the choosers trust, and that is WRONG. It's wrong, Ray. I have no idea what is motivating your resistance to making a judgment that 99% of the population I think would make, but you can spin it anyway you want to yourself. You seem further confused by the fact that some Mormons stay for social reasons, or don't want to know if it's a fraud. THAT IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to the obligation that the church has to stop lying to its members. Holy cow, I'm turning into Pahoran here. Unbelievable! I sure didn't see this one coming.

Quote:
They died because of what they believed - but the point is, they believed what they believed, because they were deliberately deceived by self-styled "men of God" who care so little about their duties to their fellow men, that they'd rather young boys come home in coffins that simply tell the truth about their church. It does not speak well of you, that you either can't grasp this point, or are morally indifferent to it.

You say I don't understand your point of view, but do you understand that not all Mormons feel "deceived", even when they know MORE than what you know? What do you think FARMS is? A kindergarten? What do you think FAIR is? An LDS forum discussing how to have good family home evenings? They don't care what you think, Tal. Do you expect to jolt Wade, Pahoran or Plutarch out of their "stupor"?

---Unbelievable. Did you even read the excerpt of mine you quoted? This is really simple. SOME people, when they look at all the facts, will conclude that Mormonism is a fraud. OTHER people may not care whether it's a fraud or not, and so not even bother to look. And OTHER people will look at all the facts, and will conclude that Mormonism is all it claims to be. But the point is, NONE of this has anything to do with the ethical obligation of the church to present all the facts it has relevant to its claims. In other words, it doesn't matter that "some Mormons don't feel deceived"? Who cares? If they don't feel deceived, let them go get shot for the church. BUT GIVE THEM THE FACTS. That's what this is about.

You ask what I think FARMS is? I think FARMS is a propaganda operation.

Does a car dealer "owe" potential buyers the truth that some other make is better? Why did you not start studying all these facts earlier? And more to the point, why are you blaming the church for that?

Ray A, you say you are a caring individual. I'm not so sure anymore. You do sound like a very confused one. And you don't have to believe me, but this last exculpation attempt for the church really lays the cards out on the table.

I despise the sense of morality, if it could even dignified with that term, you display here. It makes me ill. Your comments literally make me feel like vomiting. I don't know what happened to you, or what you're battling with, or what, but your comments here betray something profoundly wrong. You blithely excuse an organization which demonizes all other sources of information about itself in the minds of its innocent members, the minds of which it begins shaping nearly from birth, and then takes advantage of that trust to mislead them. It feeds them lies, scaring them with talk of Satan into never doubting that. And yet, to you, it's really all the members who are to blame...

Even Wade and Pahoran and Mormons at least have the decency to try to figure out ways it might not be true that the church is a purveyor of lies, proving that they agree with me that such behaviour is morally grotesque. But you - you look at the lies, the deception, the sufferings and yes deaths as a result of manipulated, uninformed choices, and acknowledge them fully, and yet you excuse them...you excuse what everyone else knows is sick.

You disgust me.

I'm done.

[_Ray A]

You'll have to pardon me, Ray. I thought you didn't have a recovery because you said on this very thread "my 'recovery' never took place. I walked away from the church of my own volition in 1987, therefore I didn't need to recover from anything. It was my choice to walk, it made me feel freer and happier. So why would I be angry??". I didn't seen anything about crying anywhere and so just took the quote above as an accurate description of a non-recovery.

And did I go out and bash the church? No, Tal, I continued to go until 1987. Of course the discoveries hurt, of course my faith in the church leaders was shattered, but I don't hold grudges, this is what life is all about. It seems to me you're retroactively applying your former expectations of perfection to the church leaders now. I put it to you that you had unrealistic expectations all of your life, and what you are really criticising is the failure of your expectations, not the reality.

I don't know if I'm representative of other RFM regulars, but I don't know what ultimate point you're trying to make, other than one which strikes me as far more offensive than anything I find on RFM - that people grieving over the loss of everything they hold most dear "just aren't doing it right", because they're not doing it like you. You don't have anger at the church. Great. So what? How can anything be extrapolated from that? You sound shaken up because you got booted off the RFM board.

I was shaken up that these very people who were claiming the church was "narrow-minded", "censoring", "authoritarian", could not even tolerate a sentence of praise about the church unless it was qualified by further demonising. This is paranoia. Other than that, I wouldn't post on RFM if I was paid to do so.

Perhaps you got booted off not so much because people are consumed by anger, but because they grew frustrated trying to reason with you when you seem incapable of understanding even the simplest arguments, and hell-bent on clinging on no matter what to the opinions you have. There's no problem with you believing what you want to believe, but just as you would find tiresome incessant attempts by 9/11 conspiracy theorists to tell you all about their theories without really considering any of your counterarguments, so would many people find dealing with your incomprehension tiresome. Is that so surprising? You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about the RFM board, but that doesn't really have anything to do with me, does it? I can see why people there would find you difficult to deal with, but I don't run the board, and frankly, I don't think it's where someone with your, shall we say, unique take on Mormonism really belongs.

And do you listen to Mormons, Tal? Now that you've changed do you think you can still try to understand them? When you came on here you wanted to interview Wade, saying you wanted to understand his viewpoints. Did you understand them? Was it profitable? Colour me cynical, but I got the impression what you really wanted to do was entrap Wade. If I have misjudged your motives, accept my apology. Why badger people with "what would you do if...?" arguments? Why highlight your interview with Wade for the whole forum to see? Your first thread here was about "presentism", and in that thread it was made known quite clearly that you thought any counter-arguments would be "silly". Not even worth considering. How open-minded are you, Tal? Have you traded one form of orthodoxy (I'll be kind and avoid the "B" word) for another?

Sigh. Yes Ray, that's what I'm saying. I'm also saying that doesn't strike most people as a remarkable insight. Speaking of recovery, you don't seem very recovered at all. You seem to be playing over and over again in your head "the Mormon movie"...for some reason, desperate to view it as favourably as possibly, even when that requires some real distortion and moral indifference. But that's really your choice. I'm not even sure anymore why I'm in this conversation.

I'll clear it up for you again: I will not be going back to the church. I'm not playing any "Mormon movie" in my head. I have very different views, but I believe Mormonism is a part of those overall views, and I also believe that Joseph Smith was indeed a very complex individual. In fact Dr. Lawrence Foster said that Joseph Smith was "one of the most complex human beings who ever lived". His words. So I see a "larger picture", and it does not involve demonising Joseph Smith.

And by the way, I do find many of the actions of the Catholic church atrocious. So what? When one of your buddies says to another buddy, "hey, I like that watch", do you jump up and down and say, "What about everyone else's watches?!" Is there some kind of affirmative action policy on criticism of one fraudulent church, where you can't say anything unless you say something critical about every religion in the history of the earth? What's really eating you, Ray?

I could ask what's eating you too, Tal. What is your purpose on boards? To help Mormons realise how stupid they are? How dumb they are? And wondering why some who know all the facts continue to be Mormons? And coming up with every conspiracy theory against Joseph Smith you can think of? No problem, but get your facts right first, Tal. Beastie said she's still worried about the "swamp thing", but I've told her before, too, let's make sure we have all the facts. Things are not always what they appear on the surface. If we listen to every theory, well we'd have to conclude that Emma Smith was the dumbest woman on earth who ever lived. In spite of polygamy, and her hatred of it, she continued to support her husband. Was she a "dupe"? And in later years she even lied to support Joseph. She is the same one, by the way, who said Joseph could not even construct a coherent sentence when he "translated" the Book of Mormon. She was an eyewitness! So if you're saying Joseph Smith was an outright fraud, you're also condemning eyewitnesses like Emma, who went to her grave believing he was a prophet. The Book of Mormon does not make sense to me as history, but I consider what intelligent people like Emma said, and try to find a context, and it's not as simple as calling the whole shebang a fraud.

In response to my assertions that you didn't have a "recovery period", you wrote:

All assumptions. And as I've pointed out before, here and elsewhere, wrong assumptions.

Pop quiz: Can you guess why I made those assumptions? It's because someone named "Ray A" said on this very thread: "my 'recovery' never took place...I didn't need to recover from anything". Do I really need to make a comment?

Maybe you don't need to recover as much as you need to reassess dogmatic conclusions?

By the way, I'm not a big fan of anger, either, and I've even written on RFM about coping with it. I would like to say, though, that your own posts here I find surprisingly irritating. Perhaps you mistook RFM anger toward your posts for anger toward the church. They seem very much detached from what I think to most people appear to be very relevant facts. I've corresponded with Midgley and Peterson, and neither of them were as irritating as you, even though I have no reason to doubt your assertion that you are a kind, sincere person, who helps Mormons. Good for you. Just don't show them any of your posts!

You don't get it, Tal. You just don't get it. I'm sure you think I'm a Mormon apologist. Well I have news for you, I'm an apologist for nothing. If I'm an apologist for anything it is truth, and I crawl through the jungle of pro and anti Mormonism to try to find the truth. My views are so diverse that I'll read everything from Mormon apologia to Richard Dawkins. I've been a Dawkins reader now for a long time, and I carefully absorb what he writes, even if I don't agree, and my order for his book The God Delusion has been placed. He says he wants to convince the "moderates", and guess what? I'm a moderate. I hold no extremist views, and I bow to no faith. I listen to all arguments, and all sides of the debate. You talk about emailing Dan Peterson, well I had Dan and his wife in my home to lunch two months ago, when they were in Australia, and I spoke with them for four hours, and I'm telling you the same things I told them - I am open to anything! I am prepared to revise my thoughts, conclusions, on any solid evidence in contrast to what I have so far assessed. By the way, I'm glad to hear Dan doesn't "irritate" you as much as I do. My impression that you hated each other's guts was gladly mistaken (or is it?). But I still don't know why you're trying to discredit him. Maybe this was a long time ago correspondence? Or do you just like the clapping crowds at RFM?

Amazing - more irritation! Ray, YOU are missing the point that their CHOICES are being shaped by a self-interested, deliberate manipulation of facts by a party the choosers trust, and that is WRONG. It's wrong, Ray. I have no idea what is motivating your resistance to making a judgment that 99% of the population I think would make, but you can spin it anyway you want to yourself. You seem further confused by the fact that some Mormons stay for social reasons, or don't want to know if it's a fraud. THAT IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to the obligation that the church has to stop lying to its members. Holy cow, I'm turning into Pahoran here. Unbelievable! I sure didn't see this one coming.

Read my posts more carefully, Tal. I said the whitewashing is wrong. Perk up your ears - the white washing is wrong. But it is to be expected, because that's the "nature of the beast". If you swallowed Mormonism hook, line and sinker, whose fault is that? Have you ever heard of "skeptical inquiry"? If you get duped, whose fault is that? If I tell you I have some land I want to sell you at low tide, and you believe me, whose fault is that? It's all "so obvious" to you now, Tal. And let me reiterate, Tal, I'm not a partisan, and I will be condemned by both Mormons and ex-Mormons. Both want me to take their side, and all I'm saying is - show me the facts first. And your idea that Mormonism is a cult is right up there with the pixies.

Unbelievable. Did you even read the excerpt of mine you quoted? This is really simple. SOME people, when they look at all the facts, will conclude that Mormonism is a fraud. OTHER people may not care whether it's a fraud or not, and so not even bother to look. And OTHER people will look at all the facts, and will conclude that Mormonism is all it claims to be. But the point is, NONE of this has anything to do with the ethical obligation of the church to present all the facts it has relevant to its claims. In other words, it doesn't matter that "some Mormons don't feel deceived"? Who cares? If they don't feel deceived, let them go get shot for the church. BUT GIVE THEM THE FACTS. That's what this is about.

And your "facts" are.............??? Hint: Subjective. I suppose you also think Santa Claus is a fraud? No doubt about it.

You ask what I think FARMS is? I think FARMS is a propaganda operation.

I will agree with you here to some extent. Dan will vigourously disagree with me. But I have found that the elimination of certain "unpleasantries" is indeed a part of FARMS. They do tend to focus on "faith building" to the exclusion of more critical materials. I went through this on my thread about Davis Bitton's "dual writings". Bitton wrote in two voices, one for FARMS, and one for BYU Studies, there is no question of that. This was in regard to B.H. Roberts, and how Bitton presented Roberts to BYU Studies and how he presented it to FARMS. Very different. So I do think that sometimes FARMS sometimes prefers the "smooth things".

Ray A, you say you are a caring individual. I'm not so sure anymore. You do sound like a very confused one. And you don't have to believe me, but this last exculpation attempt for the church really lays the cards out on the table.

Of course, I'm really an apologist in disguise. If that conclusion makes you happy, smoke your pipe to it. Draw whatever conclusions you like.

I despise the sense of morality, if it could even dignified with that term, you display here. It makes me ill. Your comments literally make me feel like vomiting. I don't know what happened to you, or what you're battling with, or what, but your comments here betray something profoundly wrong. You blithely excuse an organization which demonizes all other sources of information about itself in the minds of its innocent members, the minds of which it begins shaping nearly from birth, and then takes advantage of that trust to mislead them. It feeds them lies, scaring them with talk of Satan into never doubting that. And yet, to you, it's really all the members who are to blame...

I don't recall saying that the church leaders are exculpated from all blame. It's a two way street.

Even Wade and Pahoran and Mormons at least have the decency to try to figure out ways it might not be true that the church is a purveyor of lies, proving that they agree with me that such behaviour is morally grotesque. But you - you look at the lies, the deception, the sufferings and yes deaths as a result of manipulated, uninformed choices, and acknowledge them fully, and yet you excuse them...you excuse what everyone else knows is sick.

Of course, my mind is shut tight. I fast and bear testimony to myself every fast Sunday. I'm really a Mormon in disguise. And to Mormons I'm a heretic. Looks like I haven't improved much. Mormons hate me, ex-Mormons hate me. Boo-F****** Hoo. I will die in shame from rejection from both!

You disgust me.

I'm done.

Best of luck, Tal. You're on a journey of discovery. Peace to you, your wife, and your family. May you have every success in life, and I will add, I'm sorry you had so much pain in your exit from Mormonism. Strive to be happy. Always look on the bright side. Be positive, and learn from the past, but don't let it canker your soul. Thank God for every experience you have. I've been through hell, and I turned it into heaven. Nothing will defeat me, because like you, I believe I'm here for a purpose.

So long, Ray.