Steve Benson's bizarre behavior on the RfM board

[_truth dancer]

And... going along with sleeping willow,

For God to be a human like us, means not only did God have primate ancestors (and lived on an earth identical to ours with the exact same environment and evolution) but that evolution stopped at this particular moment in the history of the universe. Another few million years and, if the human species still exists, they certainly won't be anything like us.

I could never get this idea of God/man/primate into my brain!

:-)

~dancer~

[_marg]

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.

If some of Dan's view may be supportive of and/or in line with Mormon apologist's arguments then it's not a particularly nasty thing to say. I don't know if Dan would consider himself a critic of Mormonism. I think he considers himself more impartial than that, rather an objective historian albeit exmormon.

Randy J. addressed this issue:

Vogel's thread was closed before I even had a chance to send my response. So here it is:

I wrote:

>>Whether Smith had sex with Helen or not, or whether we want to call it "rape" or not, EXACTLY HOW was it the "standard" of Joseph Smith's time for a 36-year-old man, married with children, and a supposed Christian minister, to engage in a romantic and/or sexual relationship with a 14-year-old girl, or any other female of *any* age?


Dan Vogel responded:

>Hold on, now, the subject WAS the definition of "rape". You can't change the subject and act like you have a meaningful rebuttal.


In these recent discussions, I have stated my opinion that I don't know whether Smith was guilty of rape or not, and that that would have to determined by a legal scholar.

However, you went beyond the question of rape when you apologized for Smith's actions by asking if we were "judging Joseph Smith by the standards of our time?" You have repeated this "We can't judge Smith by today's standards" crap several times, and my question to you was, and is, Exactly how did Smith's activities jibe with the standards of his *own* time?

You are arguing the issue from a legalistic angle of what constitutes rape. That's the tactic we'd expect from a TBM apologist, the likes of whom I debated these issues against for years. We Ex-Mormons are more concerned with what is moral and ethical---especially when the person in question was an alleged Christian minister, and the founder of a sect whose canonized dogma specifically prohibited polygamy and adultery.

As to whether Smith's actions constituted rape, one poster provided a legal definition:

>Rape is an act of sexual intercourse carried out:


>3.where the victim believes, due to the perpetrator's intentional deceptive acts, that the perpetrator is her spouse.


To which you replied:

>This begs the question of whether or not they were married. Joseph Smith was in trouble law with all his wives, not just the 14 year-old. He didn't deceive her about being her husband. They all recognized him as her husband, even if the law didn't. But everyone involved knew that the law didn't recognize Joseph Smith as the husband to his plural wives. So, it wasn't exactly deception. >They were all in willful violation of the law.


Your position is that there was no deception, but what a legal scholar would have to determine is, did Smith's bogus claim of having received a "revelation on celestial marriage" constitute that deception? We ought to ask ourselves, "Would any of those females have had sex with Joseph Smith if he had *not* justified it with his "revelation"? Of course they wouldn't have.

As a self-proclaimed prophet, Smith convinced his victims that he had a "higher law" from God that overrode man's laws. Secular laws exist to prevent predators from victimizing people in that manner. According to the law quoted above, in my opinion Smith would be guilty of rape by deception, because he pretended to be the womens' husband by the pretended authority of his revelation.

>I have admitted that Joseph Smith sexually abused Helen Mar, as well as all the rest of the women.

Early on, you pled Smith's case by asserting that:

>Girls became women sooner back then.


That's the exact same argument we hear from TBM apologists. When data was presented that refuted your assertion, you backpedaled with:

>When I said girls became women earlier back then, I was talking socially, not biologically.


...which seems disingenuous to me, since the discussion is whether or not Smith had sex with underage girls, not whether he took them on a buggy ride. Also, your point is moot because the question of minimum legal marriage age only applies to legal marriages; Smith's relationships with other women were not marriages in any sense of the word. Most of his affairs were one-night stands or short flings, and that makes it further obvious that he concocted his "revelation" primarily to have sex with them, rather than to serve as a legitimate husband to them. So that is further deception.

You also responded to a poster:

>You have already decided that such behavior is immoral as if there is some objective way to determine that, or that morals don't change with society.

It's comments like that which cause readers on this BB to accuse you of being an apologist for Smith. It was no more moral for anyone who claims to be a Christian to have sex with people to whom they aren't married then than it is now---especially when that minister's own dogma specifically prohibited such behavior.

[_marg]

Hi TD, I see you just posted, you may have missed my previous post to you regarding a replacement word for "rape". Could you take a look and if you think of something let me know. Thanks

[_truth dancer]

Hi Marg...

Ohhh sorry I missed that question. :-)

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?

I'm speaking for myself here but for something to be considered rape it means, sex was forced on an individual or in the case of statutory rape, an adult had sex with an underaged (based on the law) girl.

I don't think either applies to Helen Kimball even if Joseph Smith did have sex with her. (I'm unaware of a law stating fourteen year old girls were underage in that state but if there was one then rape would be applicable).

I would certainly suggest Joseph Smith was abusive... he took advantage of many young girls and women, he was manipulative and coercive, he used his power for sexual advantage, he was completely unethical.

Absolutely!

Coincidently, just this morning I became aware of a very complicated case where a thirty something year old man did indeed rape a fourteen year old... (a daughter of his partner). I'm pretty sure everyone would agree that the guy needs to be locked away. Strange how Joseph Smith gets a free pass by followers. If God says it is OK then no big deal! ARRGHHH!!!

~dancer~

[_SatanWasSetUp]

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.

What's wrong with leaving the church because of their position on evolution? There is no "wrong" reason to leave the church just like their is no "wrong" reason to join. It's a personal decision either way.

[_beastie]

marg,

I refuse to continue arguing about Steve's behavior with you when you didn't even read the threads in question. You are going back to threads that, If I recall correctly, were all created AFTER Bob's "lectures", so to speak, when attempts were being made to modify behavior.

I will, however, respond to this line:

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

You made this statement because I couldn't remember the specific offensive statements Steve said. Particularly when you never read the threads in question, drawing such a conclusion is a wild, unfounded leap. The more likely reason I can't remember his specific statements is because there were so daggone many - not just Steve's, but other posters in the gang bang. And many of Steve's comments were juvenile and inane, hardly so notable to be worth remembering. I made the snide comment to him, finally, that at least I would have hoped he would have been WITTY - because his one liners weren't even witty. They were the juvenile sort that Satanwassetup noted. Hardly worth remembering.

I just wonder why you are assuming the position of Steve's apologist when you are so handicapped by the fact that you didn't even read the threads in question. Doesn't that bother you in the least??

And I am not sensitive to the Pious fraud theory being challenged. It is your same old bias popping up, the one that made you declare Steve was looking for the "truth", while Dan and others who supported his theory had an agenda instead of finding the truth. I really would like to see the PF theory fairly debated. I'm still on the fence, although I admit that reading the biography of David Smith, Joseph Smith' youngest son who clearly had bipolar is pushing me towards PF.

What I am sensitive to is the ridiculous personal attacks Dan has to suffer every time he sets foot on RFM. You can defend Steve's behavior which you did not witness all you want, I know what I read and saw. I was embarrassed for the board in general, and for specific posters in particular, notably Steve himself. I can only hope he was drunk when he posted some of that stuff, at least then he'd have some sort of excuse.

[_marg]

I'm speaking for myself here but for something to be considered rape it means, sex was forced on an individual or in the case of statutory rape, an adult had sex with an underaged (based on the law) girl.

Hi TD,

I think my question was what other word could be used besides "rape" to impart the unethical nature of the the sex which may have occurred between J. Smith and Kimball.

You agreed it would be unethical but also I think agreed with Dan the rape word wasn't appropriate. So what other word could be used such that the unethical aspect is relayed.

Do you think when rape is used that it only relates to sex under physical force?

When I went to answers.com for a quick def'n..force wasn't mentioned as a requirement.

verb

To compel (another) to participate in or submit to a sexual act: assault, force, ravish, violate. See sex/asexual.

What do you say on all this?

[_marg]

And I am not sensitive to the Pious fraud theory being challenged. It is your same old bias popping up, the one that made you declare Steve was looking for the "truth", while Dan and others who supported his theory had an agenda instead of finding the truth. I really would like to see the PF theory fairly debated. I'm still on the fence, although I admit that reading the biography of David Smith, Joseph Smith' youngest son who clearly had bipolar is pushing me towards PF.

It's not that you are sensitive to the Pious fraud theory being challenged, it's that you are sensitive to Dan's posts on the Pious fraud theory being challenged which I witnessed over half a year ago on RFM. People didn't jump all over Dan back then, were not unreasonable. They presented arguments against why Smith's pious fraud should not be accepted. And you didn't accept those arguments. You also resorted to criticism of critics, that they were too emotional to examine this issue fairly and rationally. You persisted and persisted back then on the RFM board and people were getting fed up and some did eventually start to criticize you, Cabbie being one. And on this board you've complained a number of times about all the critics back then on RFM who treated you and Dan poorly. As if the overwhelming majority of people back then...used personal attacks and unreasonable arguments. That was not the case.

What I am sensitive to is the ridiculous personal attacks Dan has to suffer every time he sets foot on RFM.

The first time on RFM he was not treated to personal attacks. The majority of posts were well reasoned arguments agains the theory..not Dan. But of course the overwhelming majority were against it. I have to side with RFM posters on this one. The church has mega bucks to promote their history of the church. They can present it any way they wish, rewrite it to suit their goals. They've got missionaries around the world promoting, universities teaching, people writing books, t.v., advertisements, etc etc. The exmormons on RFM have very little which supports them. All they have is their written word on the Net. There is no reason they should be easy on posts on RFM which they vehemently disagree, which appear to be in support of the church. There is enough of that already being done by the church itself. And the majority on there do vehemently disagree with the Smith as pious fraud.

To be fair Dan didn't post there to discuss pious fraud. Even the first time I don't think that was his intent. But he's well known in the internet community. For exmormons..J Smith's ethical character is a hot issue. What it boils down to is that Dan can not defend that topic "Smith's pious fraud"..on RFM without a lot of counter posts against it. Not that he is interested in doing so.

[_beastie]

It's not that you are sensitive to the Pious fraud theory being challenged, it's that you are sensitive to Dan's posts on the Pious fraud theory being challenged which I witnessed over half a year ago on RFM. People didn't jump all over Dan back then, were not unreasonable. They presented arguments against why Smith's pious fraud should not be accepted. And you didn't accept those arguments. You also resorted to criticism of critics, that they were too emotional to examine this issue fairly and rationally. You persisted and persisted back then on the RFM board and people were getting fed up and some did eventually start to criticize you, Cabbie being one. And on this board you've complained a number of times about all the critics back then on RFM who treated you and Dan poorly. As if the overwhelming majority of people back then...used personal attacks and unreasonable arguments. That was not the case.

Obviously, I remember it quite differently.

But your defense of cabbie's attack of me has discredited you in my eyes. He called me a product of incest, a psychologically disturbed woman, a closet believer, etc. You present his criticism so innocently,

To me, you are the equivalent of people who blindly defend the church, no matter what its leaders have done.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Marg...

I think my question was what other word could be used besides "rape" to impart the unethical nature of the the sex which may have occurred between J. Smith and Kimball.

I don't think there is "a" word to describe Joseph Smith's behavior.

You agreed it would be unethical but also I think agreed with Dan the rape word wasn't appropriate. So what other word could be used such that the unethical aspect is relayed.

See above.

Do you think when rape is used that it only relates to sex under physical force?

No...it is "the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse."

Statutory rape is having sex with an underage (by law) person.

What do you say on all this?

Is there any evidence that Joseph Smith physically forced or emotionally compelled Helen or anyone else to have sex with him?

I don't know of any.

Obviously Joseph Smith did indeed manipulate and coerce Helen to "marry" him... but I have no evidence he had sex with her (I think he most likely did) but even so, I have no evidence he compelled her or forced himself upon her. My best guess is that once she agreed to be married she would have been like other recently married girls and women, very willing to engage in sex without coercion or force.

I'm assuming you believe Joseph Smith raped Helen because he coerced her into marriage which would entail sex.

I see a man who coerced a fourteen year old girl into marriage. And I see a girl who then most likely willingly had sex with Joseph Smith if sex was involved in their relationship.

IF there were evidence that Joseph Smith compelled or forced Helen to have sex I would be right there with you. I just don't know of any evidence to prove or support this.

~dancer~