Steve Benson's bizarre behavior on the RfM board

[_Gazelam]

Bensons whole reason for leaving the church in the first place is a total joke. Evolution? That was his last straw?

Hes a total jack-ass.

[_marg]

No I do not think Dan is trying to justify Joseph Smith's behavior at all.

Thanks TD I'm not sure I agree with you on the justify part. I used the words in my question to you "justify as ethical." I think Dan probably does argue it Smith's actions were ethical in the Kimball marriage given standards of the time, the laws, that he believe J Smith truly believed God made revelations to him which was over and above any laws and hence wasn't deceptive under the circumstances. I don't think he believes that Kimball entered the transaction with Smith with any deception involved. That's my take from what I've read of his posts.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Marg...

No, I don't think Dan would suggest Joseph Smith's actions were "ethical." I know Dan thinks Joseph Smith was manipulative and abusive in his behavior and that is never ethical to say the least!

I think his issue is more to do with the definition of "rape" than what was or was not ethical behavior.

:-)

~dancer~

[_marg]

marg,

I don't care of people are aggressive in their debates. I enjoy it when people can make good arguments and defend them. That is not what happened, to a large extent, on RFM. People were making inane one-liners, dismissive comments, snide remarks about Dan's integrity and intent. That isn't being an aggressive pit bull. That's being an ass. By your own admission, you have not read those threads, so why are you arguing the point as if you know what happened?

Beastie, I was talking about Steve perhaps being a pit bull, and aggressive against Dan ...but your reply switches to people in general on RFM, "making inane one-liners, dismissive comments, snide remarks about Dan's integrity and intent".

Did Steve attack Dan's integrity? Can you remember which one liners of Steve you found so offensive?

Steve wrote the following:

Subject: I have commended him on this board regarding some of his research . . .
Date: Jan 23 16:08
Author: steve benson
Mail Address:


notably, "Indian Origins and the Book of Mormon."

I (along with many others in "countless" threads/posts) have criticized Vogel's "pious fraud" theory, not attacked him as a person.

Sheesh. :)

As far as why am I arguing in this thread not having read his one liners, there are many reasons. One is I have some interest in this pious fraud topic. Another is that when I read this thread it was all about process, personal attack on Steve with no quotes to back up...but when I went to the RFM board every post I read of his was spot on logically. I read a lot of posts which had quotes from posts which may have been deleted and consequently did get a sense of what went on. I appreciate to some extent the dynamics of message boards and that in writing things can be blown out of proportion. A one liner face to face gets quickly forgotten, a one liner written may have as much impact perhaps more so than a lot of words. That's the nature of the medium. I took that into account and considered that Steve may quite possibly have fired off a lot of one liners but that doesn't make him or his actions bizarre. I could do on and on here Beastie, but I'm not sure it's going to help much in this discussion.

Now some people did make substantial arguments, but they were outnumbered by the noise.

by the way, my current stance with Benson is that all he will get out of me is dismissive one liners, because he earned it. I'm a firm believer in tit-for-tat.

Well I read lots of his posts which were filled with substance. But if you want to fire one liners at him go ahead.

Dan didn't post there to discuss pious fraud. It's unfortunate people goaded him into discussing it. Dan's personal qualities far exceed anything one could find negative about him. He probably knows 99.9% more than anyone else currently living who knows anything about Mormonism. But the main posters on RFM will not tolerate posts which paint Smith as a sincere believer of what he preached. They find that offensive. So it's not about Dan personally. And I agree with them in taking this stance, given the nature and purpose of that board. Their position contrary to what you have painted in some of your posts, is not based on irrational emotion, it's based on good reasoning and evidence.

[_marg]

Hi Marg...

No, I don't think Dan would suggest Joseph Smith's actions were "ethical." I know Dan thinks Joseph Smith was manipulative and abusive in his behavior and that is never ethical to say the least!

I think his issue is more to do with the definition of "rape" than what was or was not ethical behavior.

:-)

~dancer~

Well then what word could be used instead of "rape" in this particular case involving Smith & Kimball which would impart the unethical nature of the likely sexual activity involved?

[_beastie]

Beastie, I was talking about Steve perhaps being a pit bull, and aggressive against Dan ...but your reply switches to people in general on RFM, "making inane one-liners, dismissive comments, snide remarks about Dan's integrity and intent".

Did Steve attack Dan's integrity? Can you remember which one liners of Steve you found so offensive?

Yes, Steve used dismissive, snide remarks about Dan and inane one-liners. No, I cannot remember exactly what he said and the threads are gone.

Marg, several people here read the threads and witnessed what I think of as Steve's breakdown. I showed you Bob's comments calling his behavior "inappropriate". By your own admission you did not read the threads. Why do you continue to argue the point when you are ignorant of what occurred?

[_marg]

Yes, Steve used dismissive, snide remarks about Dan and inane one-liners. No, I cannot remember exactly what he said and the threads are gone.

Well then what he said couldn't have been all that offensive.

Marg, several people here read the threads and witnessed what I think of as Steve's breakdown. I showed you Bob's comments calling his behavior "inappropriate". By your own admission you did not read the threads. Why do you continue to argue the point when you are ignorant of what occurred?

Beastie I've addressed Bob's remarked in a previous post which I won't revisit. I've quoted Steve in which he explains he didn't attack Dan personally but rather the pious fraud issue.

I may be ignorant of exactly what occurred but apparently you don't remember what was said other than your perception is that the one liners were personal attacks on Dan's integrity. I know from previous observations of discussions on RFM in which you've participated that you are sensitive to Dan's posts re pious fraud being criticized. I know as well that you have on this board misrepresented more than once what transpired back then. I don't trust your perception of this particular argument related to pious fraud involving Dan & the RFM board. When I looked in a thread you started which was in support of Pious fraud of cult leaders, I noted that Steve's one liner post was not an attack on you personally but yours in reply was an attack on him.

I objected to Jersey Girls's posts and just tonight I came across a post by Steve which says almost exactly what I've argued on here in my discussions with her. I'll post it:

Subject: To accuse Joseph Smith of having sex with underage girls or not to accuse Smith of having sex with underage girls: Defining terms regarding . . .
Date: Jan 21 23:31
Author: steve benson

. . . the hoopla over Joe the Sexual Predator's relationship with Helen Mar Kimball, et al.

"Wader," in a now-closed thread, incorrectly and stubbornly assumed that when I used the term "underage" in referring to some of Joseph Smith's brides, I was employing some kind of legal definition, as provided in state criminal codes.

Indeed, what "Wader" demanded was, "I asked you to provide the age of consent. You have not done so."

That's right, "Wader," I have not--because that was not the frame of my argument against Joseph Smith, per his sexual relationships with his "underage" brides.

Rather, my frame of reference was rooted in employment of the term "underage," as provided via the first definition in "Webster's New World Dictionary," David B. Guralinik, editor-in-chief (New York: William Collins World Publishing Co., Inc., Popular Library edition, 1975, p. 650):

"1. not of mature age"

Webster's second definition (and apparently the one "Wader" wanted to hold me to) reads as follows:

"2. below the age required by law"

What we have here, apparently, is a classic failure to communicate.

I should have given "Wader" the dictionary name and page number reference for my use of the term.

And "Wader" should have not assumed I was using the term as he was. :)

[_SatanWasSetUp]

Yes, Steve used dismissive, snide remarks about Dan and inane one-liners. No, I cannot remember exactly what he said and the threads are gone.

"Well then what he said couldn't have been all that offensive."

He called Dan a Joseph Smith apologist. That's a pretty nasty thing to say to a critic. I agree with Beastie that Steve' behavior wasn't just mean-spirited, it was strange. At one point he replied with "I know you are but what am I?" That was it. A silly one-liner that a third grader would make. I started to think maybe some idiot had hijacked Steve's account because if I didn't know Steve was a regular, I would have assumed he was a mindless troll, with his repeated attacks on Dan, starting new thread after new thread, and childish one-liners. I used to like Steve, but I lost all repsect for him after that incident, and now I see why so many exmormons and critics dislike him immensely.

[_gramps]

Bensons whole reason for leaving the church in the first place is a total joke. Evolution? That was his last straw?

Hes a total jack-ass.

Believing in evolution, I mean the whole ball of wax, is far, far less of a total joke than believing in flying angels and disappearing gold plates and Adam or Michael or whomever he is, or was, living in Missouri. And you believe, no, you "know" that's true, don't you?

Who's the total jack-ass, again, Gaz?

[_SleepingWillow]

Bensons whole reason for leaving the church in the first place is a total joke. Evolution? That was his last straw?

Hes a total jack-ass.

Care to elaborate on how evolution is compatible with the Adam and Eve story (let alone Genesis)? How is it compatible with humans being created in God's image? Why should God look like a creature whose appearance is the result of billions of years of natural (pseudo-random) selection?