Exmormon Foundation Conference

[_Dr. Shades]

If I skipped hunting and my yearly impulses to kill something and found myself in SLC, . . .

You have a yearly impulse to kill something?

[_Equality]

Just to be clear....there will be no attacks by Danite suicide bombers that night.
It's perfectly safe. :)

Don't worry they are their worst enemy...
They claim not to be a RFM clown (over 90%. of people attend are RFM clowns).
The bad thing is RFM is run by a pair of paranoid folks who exhibit the symptoms of paranoia & Werfolgungswahn.
They do piss off lots of good people. Their problem (in a nutshell) is total control & censorship.
But they are not even close to reach MAD&d's standards though.
Anyway, you reap, what you sow....

Well, I am going for the first time this year. I am a secular humanist ex-Mormon. Most of the folks I know who are going to this are not of the evangelical stripe (to address a point made in another post).

I have posted on RfM maybe three times in three years. I hate that board for a lot of reasons. The interface sucks, it IS highly censored, responses are limited (threads often closed), and the threads only stay up for like two weeks. So there are the same things over and over again. The RfM site could also be much easier to navigate and could serve as a portal to the DAMU but they don't use it properly. I don't know the people who run it and have nothing to say good or bad about them personally. I just think the site is stuck in circa 1998 with its lousy hard-to use interface. PostMo, FLAK (where I am a moderator, in the interest of full disclosure), and this board are far more user-friendly. I'm not sure why so many people keep posting at RfM when better alternatives are available.

[_OMWO2]

Well, I am going for the first time this year. I am a secular humanist ex-Mormon. Most of the folks I know who are going to this are not of the evangelical stripe (to address a point made in another post).

I have posted on RfM maybe three times in three years. I hate that board for a lot of reasons. The interface sucks, it IS highly censored, responses are limited (threads often closed), and the threads only stay up for like two weeks. So there are the same things over and over again. The RfM site could also be much easier to navigate and could serve as a portal to the DAMU but they don't use it properly. I don't know the people who run it and have nothing to say good or bad about them personally. I just think the site is stuck in circa 1998 with its lousy hard-to use interface. PostMo, FLAK (where I am a moderator, in the interest of full disclosure), and this board are far more user-friendly. I'm not sure why so many people keep posting at RfM when better alternatives are available.

I personally posted on RfM exclusively when I was at the beginning of my exodus from Mormonism. As I got more comfortable with my exmorminism (meaning I spoke openly with my extended family), I began to search out other forums and posted less anonymously. I seriously think there is a fear, for some leaving Mormonism, of being found out by family or member friends. One rather frequent poster on RfM, whom I have met for dinner several times, is VERY concerned of disclosing in real life information for fear of his very TBM mother finding out. I was once there so I can understand how it feels. That said, I do enjoy this and other forums more because they are easier to navigate, post etc... However, I will always remain loyal to RfM for being the place I sought comfort in in realizing I wasn't alone in my unbelief.

[_Trinity]

I'm still technically a Mormon and I will not only be attending but also participating on a panel which addresses issues having to do with "mixed" marriages (one a believer, one not). This is the type of information which applies not only to exmormons but those recent unbelievers trying to navigate through the murky waters of extracting from the church and keeping their marriage intact.

I have posted on RfM about three times in the past 7 years. I am also awaiting for a newer website format and some more realistic moderators (ahem, Chad) before changing my expectation of what that board can provide in terms of support and information.

[_solomarineris]

They claim not to be a RFM clown (over 90%. of people attend are RFM clowns).

And you know this how? Show your evidence, please. You know everyone that registers? I'm in charge of registration, and I say most assuredly that you are 100% wrong.

It doesn't require extraordinary intelligence to arrive to this conclusion, show me another high traffic site you guys advertise?
Besides, I know for a fact many people from RFM attend conference.

The bad thing is RFM is run by a pair of paranoid folks who exhibit the symptoms of paranoia & Werfolgungswahn.
[/color
Again, show your evidence, please. They are a different organization.

Fine, they are different, I wish you all the success.

[color=#0000BF]But they are not even close to reach MAD&d's standards though.

I certainly hope not. Our standards for evidence, verification, and critical thinking are much higher.

Great, however, it is not enough. Read Antishock's post.
What I don't understand is; what is Susan I/S' motivation to scratch
most innocuous posts? I guess critical thinking stops there.
I've heard excuses for doing this from lame to stupid.
However this one takes the cake; "RFM is not a site for defending Mormonism".
Now, ain't that great when Randy J. or someone else writes a vicious post about Van Hale or other apologists, what do they do when Van posts a rebuttal?
I don't really care how much right side Randy J. or Steve Benson are. Civil thing to do is letting them have their say!

To RFM's credit when Simon Southerland posted something about an apoloogist clown, they let him respond. Maybe there's hope yet for RFM.






Anyway, you reap, what you sow....

[_Dianne Ormond]

My posting is for the Exmormon Foundation Conference. RfM is irrelevant to me because they are not us. If you have a complaint about RfM, take it to them, not me.

[_Equality]

Besides, I know for a fact many people from RFM attend conference.

Well, nobody disputes that. But that's not what you said. You said "90%" of the folks attending the conference would be RfMers. Dianne, who is handling the registrations and has personal knowledge on the matter, said you were wrong. Others have come on and given support to her statement. The Exmormon Foundation has posted about the conference on the RfM site because, duh, there are lots of people who visit that site who might be interested in such a conference. They have also posted announcements at Postmormon.org and the Further Light and Knowledge board, and individual bloggers from the DAMU/Outer Blogness will, I am sure, promote the conference.

[_harmony]

Just wondering... if almost all of the posters at RFM use anonymous handles, how would Dianne know if they registered for the conference? Wouldn't a person registering use their real name, instead of an internet handle? And if so, how does Dianne know how many of the people attending the conference are really RFMers and how many of them aren't?

[_Equality]

Just wondering... if almost all of the posters at RFM use anonymous handles, how would Dianne know if they registered for the conference? Wouldn't a person registering use their real name, instead of an internet handle? And if so, how does Dianne know how many of the people attending the conference are really RFMers and how many of them aren't?

Yes, people use their real names when they register. They also provide a nickname for their nametags. Most regular posters have known pseudonyms (mine is Equality, obviously). So if, say, "Randy J" or "SL Cabbie" registers, Dianne probably knows it. Likewise, if "Equality" registers, she knows I am from the FLAK board. I don't doubt there are some folks who post at RfM who might register and Dianne wouldn't necessarily peg them as RfMers, but I think she has a good enough idea about who has registered to express an informed opinion about whether "90%" of the registrants are from RfM.

[Guest]

Okay then, back up your BS to me and all the questioning members mentioned on your blog. Show me some evidence.
Show me one Lamanite (what happened to BYUs Lamanite Generation?).
Show me one credible Nephite artifact.
Show me one horse or elephant fossil during Book of Mormon times. Careful on this one, as Daniel Peterson's claim in the FAIR DVD has been debunked. Tapir and deer don't count.
Show me: one qualified non-Mormon Egyptologist that supports Joseph Smith's interpretation of the papyri
Israelite DNA instead of excuses for its absence. And if you quote the Scott Woodward Des News article, don't forget his disclaimer that additional evidence may show post-Columbian insertion.
durable pollen grains of wheat, figs, grapes, or flax during Book of Mormon times
the remains of Zarahemla or Manti
slag heap remains of steel smelting
silk instead of rabbit fur
evidence of a global Noachian flood
linguistic evidence of Hebrew or Egyptian in the Western Hemisphere
evidence of Nephite/Lamanite civilizations numbering in the millions

And for every assertion, be prepared to back it up with credible, non-apologetic, unbiased science, because I've done my scientific homework, and I'll challenge you every step of the way with the credible, non-apologetic, unbiased science that proves you are wrong.

You know what, don't waste your time. I've read the extremely weak apologetics on these things, and the REAL scientific evidence. You'll refer me to the usual FAIR and FARMS nonsense I've already read, and I'll refer you to unbiased science books and Beastie's site http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com. I double checked on the apologetics already, such as writing to the scientist that Bill Hamblin quoted, only to be told by the scientist that Hamblin's use of the scientist's work was spurious.
I read the book referenced by Peterson and Hamblin in their astro-whatever article with the faith-promoting spin, and Krupp, the scientist, clearly states that all religions are man-made to keep rulers in power, completely opposite of the spin Peterson and Hamblin gave it.
The apologists should be ashamed of the twisting of scientists' work that apologists perform.
The pretzel thinking required to maintain belief is unbelievable, especially considering the vast amount of evidence against you and the non-existence of evidence for you.
“There's a difference between faith in an area where the evidence is lacking, and denial in an area where the evidence is copious but against you.” –Baura
Like I said, I require a higher standard of evidence, verification, and critical thinking than at MADB.
Your experience may differ.
Check out my favorite site at http://www.MormonThink.com

The last url should be changed to "ExMormonKnow" me thinks. ;)

It seems your "standard of evidence, verification, and critical thinking" are measured by how much they already agree with your opinion (usually the opinion of other writers) on those particular subjects. Reaching different conclusions does not indicate that there is an inevitable lack of "standard of evidence, verification, and critical thinking" on the part of one. In fact, there could be a faulty standard of evidence, verification, and critical thinking on the part of both sides of any given argument, regardless of the outcomes, respectively. What I find most interesting about the works critical of the Church etc. is their typical lack of engagement with the actual arguments, but rather a terse dismissal, or the presentation of a different paradigm without showing how it is superior to the other side's paradigm. An example of paradigm difference would be in the nature of anthropology and the issue of plausibility, which can be observed from your list above.

As you point out, my best tactic must be to refer you elsewhere. I should point out, as I will be accused of trying to squirm out of the cold, hard "facts," that most of your issues come down to translation method of the Book of Mormon itself. The assumptions one approaches the discussion with will influence the conclusions, as yours clearly do. Given that I am far from interested spending my time trying to convince someone of your investment (and apparent hostility which may or may not be due to the Internet stripping our comments of emotion and leaving them open to interpretation) I recommend Brant Gardner's Second Witness. A new and most excellent Book of Mormon commentary not unwilling to admit problematic or rough areas. I am enjoying it a lot.

Regards,

BHodges