Plutarch Wants to Debate McCue or Bachman

[_Runtu]

As for RFM, to me it is nothing but a culture of self-righteous blame to others, and total refusal to accept personal responsibility. "I believed this crap because my parents and the authorities taught me." "It's all their fault." by the way, RFM is a hate site, no doubt about it. I am so far not in the least convinced that this has anything to do with "recovery". An imbecile who reads that site can see that this has nothing to do "healing", only church bashing. It's all about denigrating, debasing, slandering, and hating Mormonism. It is, in a word, an unhealthy place with no balance. Someone, a scholar, once told Walter Martin, "do you know you radiate hate?" Ditto for RFM. I'm still waiting for an answer to my question. Does RFM really help people to "recover from Mormonism?" If it does, please give me some practical examples.
When you recover from something, you no longer feel anger towards it, right? Or wrong?

Ray,

I've said before that one of the most painful realizations for me was my complicity in being duped. It's hard to draw the line between what I am responsible for and what the church did to me. I grew up in the church and made the mistake of taking what the church told me at face value. I actually believed it. But I am responsible for the other side of things: I made the choice to trust them, to not question, to not dig into things that "aren't necessary for my salvation." But, yes, I blame the church for teaching me to be afraid of the truth, to obey without thinking, to never question.

As for RfM, the only proof one needs to know that it is indeed a place of healing is that most of the participants stay for a very short time and then move on. Why? Because they've gotten past the anger and they can get on with their lives. I have never understood why people like you cannot allow former Mormons to feel the least bit of anger towards the church. Instead you tell them they are fostering hatred and bigotry. These people are hurting, and most of the people on RfM have only just found out the truth about the religion they believed in with all their hearts. But, no, anger is unseemly and hateful; just walk away and be a "leave-taker." Suppose you were duped by one of those Nigerian scams. Wouldn't you feel angry? And wouldn't it bother you if somebody told you that you had no right to be angry, but your anger just shows your hatred of Nigerians?

But the anger dissipates, and much of what you take as denigrating and slandering is simply the expression of feelings of deep betrayal and hurt. RfM is designed for people to get it out of their systems. And most do. Last night I had dinner with a friend who said he just finds himself uninterested in Mormonism anymore; he just doesn't care. Why? Because he has recovered. A few months ago, he was one of those pissed off haters you describe. He has healed, and I am healing. I do not know why it is so hard to understand this concept.

[_Jason Bourne]

This debate is no where near as simple as blaming "the church", as if "the church" is one unanimous brain in one body, it is an age old debate about historiography itself. It is also, I believe, books like Mormon Doctrine which have fueled an enduring mythology, and when those mythologies are dashed to pieces, some try to blame "the church". But it is these individuals like McConkie and others who perpetuate the mythologies, and in turn they influence the church manual writing committees to a large extent. If you doubt me, go back over some of the old seminary and institute manuals

.


No Ray. Take this example. Here you have a book that DOM was going to repudiate. The author publishes it twice behind the FPs back. They were livid. They were going to repudiate it. But they didn't. Why? They were worried that it would damage the image of Elder McConkie in the members eyes. So for years the book becomes defacto next to scripture for many members and it is relief on by church writers of manuals, and was quoted extensively. DOM should have had the back bone to repudiate it. But nope, he let it stand and thus members get their doctrine from an in accurate source. Just look at how the apologists run from the book today and pan it.

The bottom line for me is that it is an individual responsibility to get educated, and to blame the church for your own lack of education, when so much alternative information is available, is like blaming the police for booking you for a law you "didn't know about". All of this blame put on the church I consider to be a fob off of individual responsibility, and a misunderstanding of the very nature of religion and faith itself.

Most members get their knowledge from Church lessons, manuals, etc. where it is instructed not to deviate from the prescribed material. Try in a GD class to bring up material from Mormon Enigma when discussing polygamy. Ask about polyandry. And how about debating all the controversial issues on succession at Joseph Smith's death. The only thing members know about that is the one that the Church holds too... the apostolic succession. Never is their a discussion about William Marks, Joseph Smith 3 etc. And for reading most read the scriptures if anything. Some may read books by GAs and other popular accepted authors. Members just don't go out of their way to read books that may challenge them and many do not even know of their existence.

I was brought up LDS. After being indoctrinate as a youth how easy would it be for me to go out and search all to various issues? I did it because I was challenged by critics and became a hobby apologist. I also love history. And what I found has not really give with the faithful history the church teaches an Elder Packer espouses. Bushman's book may be the first step in the direction of the Church being more open about its history. But that book was not published by a church owned business. Does DB sell it? I do not know.

So I think you are flat out wrong that it is the members faults that they do not know the other side so to speak. The Church leadership discourages it. Many members are proud that they would never read anything critical. I hear such comments all the time. Life time members think Plural marriage was to help the poor pioneer women who had lost husbands. The Church wants to keep the members dumped down. Just look at the current lesson manuals. Why they do not even probe the more unique and interesting doctrines of Mormonism anymore.

Honestly, I cannot see how you conclude what you conclude.

[_Jason Bourne]

So the church leaders cannot be totally absolved of this lack of education in members, in my opinion. At times, they seem to scare members away from seeking out that sort of information.

beastie, I never totally absolved them, any more than I would totally absolve politicians from lying. But we know they are going to do it. And we know church history is going to be biased. I think I even said on this thread there should be more openness and honesty about the past, but I'm a realist, and I know we will never get fully disclosure. I could go to the church's website now and pluck out misleading information, but it's called "faith promoting". I also don't accept that people can learn everything about a religion by going to that religion alone. Personally, I'd check out what (informed) critics are saying as well, not church bashers.

by the way, I never followed the counsel to not read anti literature. I never had the desire until 1983, but when I got the desire the first thing I did was subscribe to Dialogue, and believe it or not, my leaders who knew of Dialogue considered it "anti". Most of them didn't even know what it was. The Walter Martin trash never appealed to me.

If you agree with this then how can you lay blame on the members and how can anyone be surprised when some get ticked and leave.

This problem will continu to increase, though it will never take a huge majority out. Most when conflicted, will not pursue the uncomfortable path.

Jason

[_Runtu]

What annoys me are all these gross charges of "LIES" and deception to people who were only doing what they thought was best at the time. I could charge the missionaries who baptised me as "liars", but were they? Are mission presidents who lead missionaries liars? You mean, "deep down" they really don't believe any of this, and foist lies on people? I've heard that argument refuted before, in another context.

One more thing, Ray. This is the classic George Costanza defense of the church: "It's not a lie if you believe it." You seem to be implying that if enough unwitting people repeat a lie, it doesn't qualify as a lie anymore. No, Ray, all this means is that the people who repeated the lies to you are not responsible for the lie. They aren't dishonest, and the church isn't magically true because they believe it.

Do you even hear the morality you're spouting?

[_wenglund]

What annoys me are all these gross charges of "LIES" and deception to people who were only doing what they thought was best at the time. I could charge the missionaries who baptised me as "liars", but were they? Are mission presidents who lead missionaries liars? You mean, "deep down" they really don't believe any of this, and foist lies on people? I've heard that argument refuted before, in another context.

One more thing, Ray. This is the classic George Costanza defense of the church: "It's not a lie if you believe it." You seem to be implying that if enough unwitting people repeat a lie, it doesn't qualify as a lie anymore. No, Ray, all this means is that the people who repeated the lies to you are not responsible for the lie. They aren't dishonest, and the church isn't magically true because they believe it.

Do you even hear the morality you're spouting?

I know you believe what you just said, but that doesn't make it any less a lie. Using your ex-Mormon reasoning, if I believe you are lying, then you are lying, whether you believe what you are saying or not. Correct?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Ray A]

Ray,

I've said before that one of the most painful realizations for me was my complicity in being duped. It's hard to draw the line between what I am responsible for and what the church did to me. I grew up in the church and made the mistake of taking what the church told me at face value. I actually believed it. But I am responsible for the other side of things: I made the choice to trust them, to not question, to not dig into things that "aren't necessary for my salvation." But, yes, I blame the church for teaching me to be afraid of the truth, to obey without thinking, to never question.

Runtu, on that one we will have to disagree. As I said before, I'm prepared to accept that those born in the church are a different curcumstance. I was born into and indoctrinated with Catholicism until I was 14. But I felt Catholicism was not the truth, and in my mid/late-teens I read hundreds of books on religion. My Catholic friends remained unquestioning about the religion of their birth (and let me tell you, Catholics have a strong emphasis on not reading anti-Catholic literature as well. Did you ever serve a mission? Did you ever come across Catholics? If you did you'd know exactly what I'm saying). At 20 I became a Mormon, totally unaware of the church's controversial history. At around 29-30 I began questioning it, and by my mid-30s I was out. Do I lay blame on either of these religions - No! It is MY responsibility to become informed. We have a basic ideological difference here, and maybe it's also related to my views regarding people who always blame systems, governments, or others for their problems. And I'm not saying governments are not to blame, but do we keep whining, or get up and productively do something about it?

As for RfM, the only proof one needs to know that it is indeed a place of healing is that most of the participants stay for a very short time and then move on. Why? Because they've gotten past the anger and they can get on with their lives.

That's a very superficial analysis, Runtu. Have you ever been to Exmo-Social? Do you know what many of them say about RFM? If you haven't recovered don't come here, and many of them criticise RFM for it's negativity, and that's why Exmo- Social was formed, to get away from all the whining and anger on RFM. In fact they had a special forum set aside for people who still wanted to talk about Mormonism, becuse subjects on Mormonism were unwelcome in the main forums. What I found, though, is that there was still considerable anger on ES among some, but if anything, ES had a far better concept of recovery. Also, how do you know that all those who stay only for a time on RFM and leave "have recovered". Do they say so. Do they say, "thanks guys, I'm fine now and all the anger is gone, see ya later"? Here is my take, I think most leave RFM because of its negativity and constant church bashing. People cannot heal in such an atmosphere. Would you like to ask a psychologist if what I say is true? Anger is legitimate, but on RFM it's obsessive and continuing anger.

I have never understood why people like you cannot allow former Mormons to feel the least bit of anger towards the church.

I do. But it can become obsessive and counter-productive if it goes on forever.

Instead you tell them they are fostering hatred and bigotry.

They are, and I've given numerous examples. Would you like me to start a thread presenting my evidence?

These people are hurting, and most of the people on RfM have only just found out the truth about the religion they believed in with all their hearts. But, no, anger is unseemly and hateful; just walk away and be a "leave-taker."

I never suggested that they should just walk away as leave-takers. Nor do I believe they should remain silent if they want to inform others. But if you speak or write in anger outsiders will say you're just a sour puss whining all the time. Say what you have to say constructively and critically, but if you SHOUT at the church or Mormons, your non-Mormon audience is going to be very small - guaranteed! They are interested in learning about Mormonism, not your constant griping about it. Not referring to you specifically. You seem to be more reasonable than many here. Why? Because as you say you're getting over it, and that's evident in some of your posts.

Suppose you were duped by one of those Nigerian scams. Wouldn't you feel angry? And wouldn't it bother you if somebody told you that you had no right to be angry, but your anger just shows your hatred of Nigerians?

Only a month ago I "got duped" by a work from home scam. I say "got duped" when I should say "nearly". I listened to everything they had to say, bought their propaganda materials, then I went on the net and did hours and hours of background investigation and discovered 1) They were operating under a pseudonym for another company, 2) They used brainwashing techniques, 3) They were looking for "submissive recruits" who could "follow instructions"., and get rich by - duping the public. I wrote back to them, pointing out all the lies of ommission, and told them, sorry, but I don't "follow instructions" very well, so I'm not your man. I said a lot more in the email, and not very nice, and I intend to write to the media exposing their lies, because many others have been caught. NONE of what their real aims were were advertised. Am I angry at them? Of course not, because millions of others do what they are doing. I don't feel the slightest anger towards them, but I'm going to let as many as I can know about the facts behind this company.

But the anger dissipates, and much of what you take as denigrating and slandering is simply the expression of feelings of deep betrayal and hurt. RfM is designed for people to get it out of their systems. And most do. Last night I had dinner with a friend who said he just finds himself uninterested in Mormonism anymore; he just doesn't care. Why? Because he has recovered. A few months ago, he was one of those pissed off haters you describe. He has healed, and I am healing. I do not know why it is so hard to understand this concept.

I wish you well in your healing, but I am still questioning the whole concept of RFM, and whether it is really a place where people recover. I don't see much evidence of that, in fact I see very much to the contrary. And I say again, I think this is more about revenge than recovery.

[_Ray A]

No Ray. Take this example. Here you have a book that DOM was going to repudiate. The author publishes it twice behind the FPs back. They were livid. They were going to repudiate it. But they didn't. Why? They were worried that it would damage the image of Elder McConkie in the members eyes. So for years the book becomes defacto next to scripture for many members and it is relief on by church writers of manuals, and was quoted extensively. DOM should have had the back bone to repudiate it. But nope, he let it stand and thus members get their doctrine from an in accurate source. Just look at how the apologists run from the book today and pan it.

Jason, this exonerates the very point I'm making. From memory, MD was first published in 1958. The McKay presidency is the one which wanted to can it. But Pres. McKay's presidency was hampered by his illnesses, and eventual death. Then Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce McConkie's father-in-law, became president and MD was safe from canning. Then the church went through FIVE presidents with MD as a "supplement" to the scriptures. The edition I have is the 18th printing in 1998, paperback, numerous errors still intact. So are the "sheep" just gullible? Not all, many members finally work up to the fact that MD was riddled with errors. I wanted to write a book length critique of it.

Most members get their knowledge from Church lessons, manuals, etc. where it is instructed not to deviate from the prescribed material. Try in a GD class to bring up material from Mormon Enigma when discussing polygamy. Ask about polyandry. And how about debating all the controversial issues on succession at Joseph Smith's death. The only thing members know about that is the one that the Church holds too... the apostolic succession. Never is their a discussion about William Marks, Joseph Smith 3 etc. And for reading most read the scriptures if anything. Some may read books by GAs and other popular accepted authors. Members just don't go out of their way to read books that may challenge them and many do not even know of their existence.

To my highlighted portion of your post, whose fault is that? I have been a GD teacher, and I know exactly what you're saying. In fact I discovered that few members even knew what FARMS was! Yet how long had I been trying to tell them about FARMS? Since 1983, because I was an original FARMS volunteer, which I quit in 1987 after a five or six page letter to its founder, Jack Welch, telling him there was too much propaganda at FARMS and they were not being self-critical enough. When Dan Peterson became editor FARMS went upwards, and really started tackling the difficult issues, and even taking on the Tanners, which the church had formerly discouraged. Dan was criticised by members for his in-your-face criticisms on anti-Mormons. So they were just NOT INTERESTED. Whose fault is that? They complained that because Dan was "exposing" Mormons to anti material in reviews he was unwittingly putting them "in the know". And they did not want to know!

I was brought up LDS. After being indoctrinate as a youth how easy would it be for me to go out and search all to various issues? I did it because I was challenged by critics and became a hobby apologist. I also love history. And what I found has not really give with the faithful history the church teaches an Elder Packer espouses. Bushman's book may be the first step in the direction of the Church being more open about its history. But that book was not published by a church owned business. Does DB sell it? I do not know.

I have heard that many members are discouraging reading of Rough Stone Rolling, so when they finally wake up ten years down the track, and see the truth, WHO are they going to blame, the church? That is just hilarious!

So I think you are flat out wrong that it is the members faults that they do not know the other side so to speak. The Church leadership discourages it. Many members are proud that they would never read anything critical. I hear such comments all the time. Life time members think Plural marriage was to help the poor pioneer women who had lost husbands. The Church wants to keep the members dumped down. Just look at the current lesson manuals. Why they do not even probe the more unique and interesting doctrines of Mormonism anymore.

Honestly, I cannot see how you conclude what you conclude.

You just gave me CHECKMATE! See my bolded portions of your post. Is the church to blame for this, or the members who are "proud that they would never read anything critical"? Are you suggesting that they are THAT stupid? Hmmm, maybe.

[_Ray A]

One more thing, Ray. This is the classic George Costanza defense of the church: "It's not a lie if you believe it." You seem to be implying that if enough unwitting people repeat a lie, it doesn't qualify as a lie anymore. No, Ray, all this means is that the people who repeated the lies to you are not responsible for the lie. They aren't dishonest, and the church isn't magically true because they believe it.

Do you even hear the morality you're spouting?

I am not suggesting that people should believe lies, heavens no, but the reality is that many times those who taught "the lies" honestly believed them, like McConkie. McConkie didn't sit down and say, "let me see how I can dupe these suckers". Yet that is the implication many make. That is all I am saying. It is MISDIRECTED blame.

[_desert_vulture]

I don't understand this crazed notion that the church "hides" information. There are plenty of church history books available at Deseret book that have all the salacious stuff so many of you cry and whine about.
Gaz

I don't really think it's crying and whining Gaz. It's more like being punched in the gut, and beat across the head with a blunt object. Then after keeling over, and gasping for breath, having someone stand on your neck and say "See, that really doesn't hurt, does it?"

Come on dude? How long have you been a member? There is such a policy of disinformation, whitewashing history, and lying that it is hardly quantifiable. Let's just say that it goes on to such a high degree, that there could be (and are) volumes written about it. I have been a member all of my life, and am in my mid forties. I am 5th Gen, BIC, MIT, RM, blah blah blah, always was a top student in Seminary and Institute, and have served in leadership capacities for the church. Here's a short list of relevant things, that I just learned the last two years:

-BoA was "translated" from funerary texts, and is NOT an actual translation of the papyrii
-JS married multiple wives and taught polygamy during his lifetime
-JS married other men's wives, while these men were living
-JS married other men's wives, while these other men were gone serving missions
-There are multiple versions of the First Vision from Joseph Smith, and they are totally inconsistent
-The Book of Mormon has a striking similarity to the Bible, Spalding's manuscript, View of the Hebrews, etc
-Blacks held the priesthood in the 1840s, like Elijah Abel, but then discrimination dominated.
-JS lost $100,000 promoting the Kirtland Safety Society, then ran away from the lawsuits
-JS married 14-year old girls and a number of other teenage brides.
-JS had sexual relations with his wives, some of whom were married to other men
-BY taught and believed Blood Atonement
-MMM was a direct result of Blood Atonment teachings and Rasmos Anderson's "conviction"
-GBH lied to police about the McLellan collection during the Hofmann affair
-BRM edited other GAs talks and changed them to suit his version of the gospel (ie Pohlman)
-The Danites killed and burned out apostates homes in Missouri
-JS conducted magical rituals in his money digging activities in New York
-JS was put on trial for duping people in his money digging ventures.

I could go on and on and on. I mean come on? Now I'm sure you might say all of these things are lies and couldn't possibly be true. Well, all I have to say to that is: Do the research yourself. I'm not going to pawn off all these things to you, and expect you to believe them without conducting your own research like I have. Hundreds of hours of research on these topics and many others. History doesn't lie Gaz. I especially refer you to Quinn, Compton, and Van Wagoner, if you are willing to open up your eyes and learn. But don't demonize me. And don't claim that the church doesn't whitewash, when you simply haven't taken the time to learn about the history of your own church.

[_Runtu]

What annoys me are all these gross charges of "LIES" and deception to people who were only doing what they thought was best at the time. I could charge the missionaries who baptised me as "liars", but were they? Are mission presidents who lead missionaries liars? You mean, "deep down" they really don't believe any of this, and foist lies on people? I've heard that argument refuted before, in another context.

One more thing, Ray. This is the classic George Costanza defense of the church: "It's not a lie if you believe it." You seem to be implying that if enough unwitting people repeat a lie, it doesn't qualify as a lie anymore. No, Ray, all this means is that the people who repeated the lies to you are not responsible for the lie. They aren't dishonest, and the church isn't magically true because they believe it.

Do you even hear the morality you're spouting?

I know you believe what you just said, but that doesn't make it any less a lie. Using your ex-Mormon reasoning, if I believe you are lying, then you are lying, whether you believe what you are saying or not. Correct?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Apparently, you do not understand basic reason.

Repeat after me: whether you believe something or not has no bearing on whether or not it's a lie. So, your believing I just lied does not make it a lie. I'm tired of your trying to play "gotcha" with everyone, Wade.