Fun w/ online missionaries: NY TIMES on 14 year old bride!

[_Sam Harris]

Hmm. Way to put it, Sam. You surprise me. Maybe you are a Christian after all.


I think it is OK to go to the local Orthodox synagogue a few miles from my home and throw turds on the roof and then laugh as they come out, don't you (collectively, and not you personally)?

[But, you are a great person to de-invite, you rabid apologist.]

What's this? An endorsement from Bob Crockett? We had an earthquake here yesterday, now I know where it came from *tongue out of cheek*.

I take the personal stance that no matter what I went through in the church, I don't need to spend the next several years discussing it. I've moved on. I do not have the responsibility or the right to take other LDS and try to move them to my mindset.

You see, the problem on this board, and the reason why I don't discuss my experiences, is because many here doing the teasing and the "we have proof" declarations don't really care about true dialogue and change. They just want personal validation, that both people and an organization were hurtful to them. Many do not want to move on to healing, because that would require moving away from the situation as a whole until you could look back at it almost dispassionately. The groupthink du jour around here is that there is no God, and you are an idiot if you believe in God.

Theists are intellectually inferior, and those who proclaim to be should be looked down upon. It's inane.

[Guest]

You seem to be somewhat over-wrought, and it is making you sound less than reasonable. Maybe there is a good reason for that, but all the same you would probably feel better if you left this board for a while and thought about something else.

[MODERATOR NOTE: Please do not "de-invite" anyone away from the board for any reason. The solution to any problem always lies in continued discussion, not withdrawal and silence.

If EVERYONE took the advice you just gave, then we wouldn't have much of a message board left, right?]

In my experience, there are times when it is better to stop talking for a while. Sam Harris does not seem to be in a mood that is permeable to reason at present. She seems to be very upset, and the talking is not making her less upset. My advice would equally well be given to someone who agreed with me but posted in the same mode that she is using at present.

[edited for typo, and to add:]

But I shall go away myself, and leave her in undisputed possession of the glorious field of conflict, in the hope that that will help to calm her.

[_mms]

Let's say it was not Boaz who asked the question. Let's say it was an investigator who had most of the missionary discussions and was committed for baptism and then saw the NYT column and thought, "I did not know that. If that is true, I would like to look further into this before I get baptized." Let's say that person then goes online to ask the Church through its official missionary channels whether the statement that Joseph Smith married a 14 year old girl is true. Let's say he got the same missionary Boaz did and the missionary gave the same answer. Let's say he trusted that answer because he has developed a relationship of trust with the church's missionaries. So he gets baptized. Ten years later, after reading all of the church-approved materials (Ensign, priesthood manuals, Gospel Principles, standard wroks all the way through, Truth Restored, Jesus the Christ, A Marvelous Work and Wonder, etc.), he still doesn't know about Helen Kimball, but finally feels like he has time to read some "extra" stuff about church history and he learns about Helen Kimball. He remembers back to the day he asked that missionary--he thinks the church deceived him; he reads more and feels more deceived; he leaves the church because when it mattered most, the church lied to him through its official channels.

What's worse? What Boaz did or what the missionary did? Is it possible to think that Boaz did a service by educating the missionary on an issue that very well may come up again considering the NYT article and other media coverage re FLDS?

(Serious question. I am not sure. It was what came to my mind and I have not thought it through, so hoping folks here can help.)

You are taking individual missionaries and making them responsible for their leaders. You are ignoring the pressures, indoctrination, and cultural issues that they deal with, the same as many of you BIC exmos. I don't think that if it were you all on the other end of the stick years ago, you would like to be seen as maliciously intending to deceive.

The missionaries taught me wrong, too. But I don't believe they are bad people, they were obeying the establishment. The average 19-21 year-old doesn't posess that much of a capacity to use long-term thinking and I don't know that many whose logic skills are that strong that they are going to be questioning every little thing. They did what they were told and pressured to do, and they should be pitied, not attacked for that.

You seem to have skipped my point in order to find something to argue with. Could it possibly be a legitimate point that even if this missionary is led to some discomfort over having learned what she did from Boaz, that others who inquire legitimately to her might be better off by getting a truthful answer? That the church will not be further embarrassed by her lack of knowledge? It seems to me it could be so.

[_Ren]

I don't disapprove of challenging missionaries. At all.
I was challenged on my mission - and I believe it helped me. I don't mean in the sense of it 'helping me out of the church' - it helped me think about certain issues one way or the other. The fact that I thought long and hard on certain points was more important than the eventual outcome.

But what I don't approve of, though, is 'talking pleasure' out of destroying someone else's world-view - especially if it's heart-felt, and obviously a central part of one's life.

[_Boaz & Lidia]

The difference between Sam and myself is one chose to join and one was forced into it.

Can she complain about the LDS church? It's her own fault for joining is it not? She was an adult covert right?

[_RockHeaded]

Got a question. Is there a marriage license for Joseph Smith and Hellen Kimball?

yes there is.

Where?

I am not sure, but you can bet it does exist. Otherwise why would they list it as a MARRIAGE on their website???

It doesn't exist.

[_The Dude]

I don't disapprove of challenging missionaries. At all.
I was challenged on my mission - and I believe it helped me. I don't mean in the sense of it 'helping me out of the church' - it helped me think about certain issues one way or the other. The fact that I thought long and hard on certain points was more important than the eventual outcome.

But what I don't approve of, though, is 'talking pleasure' out of destroying someone else's world-view - especially if it's heart-felt, and obviously a central part of one's life.

I too was challenged on my mission and I'm grateful for it. I don't know if my challengers "took pleasure" in this, but I think it likely that some of them did. So what if they did? As long as it wasn't directed at me personally -- as long as they didn't call me "stupid" or "evil" or throw turds at me -- why should their challenging words offend? I was a missionary and it was part of my position to be challenged. If I could meet them now I would thank them for giving me information and view points that made me think outside the Happy-Valley-missionary world I was living in, which was, unfortunately, a central part of my life.

If I focus on B&L's real actions, I don't find anything to fault. Only if I pretend to be inside his head, pretend to know the circuit between his motivations, his actions, and his pleasures and everything that entails -- only then can there be something to fault, maybe. But because this requires "pretend" I comfortably reject it.

[_Sam Harris]

The difference between Sam and myself is one chose to join and one was forced into it.

Can she complain about the LDS church? It's her own fault for joining is it not? She was an adult covert right?

Yet another excuse. You're an adult now, grow the hell up. When you became an adult, no one forced you to stay in the church. Don't say it was easy for me, it was hell. I'm just more adult than you. I do not take pleasure in seeking out individuals to laugh at, or "challenge" (in other words, purposefully luring them into a situation where I can embarrass them and shake their worldview as revenge).

You exercised your free will and choice in leaving the church. You now have the choice to continue to act like a petulant five-year-old and spend way too much time seeking out Mormons to torment, or you can heal, move on, and grow up.

Pity Pity Poor PP.

[_Sam Harris]

I don't disapprove of challenging missionaries. At all.
I was challenged on my mission - and I believe it helped me. I don't mean in the sense of it 'helping me out of the church' - it helped me think about certain issues one way or the other. The fact that I thought long and hard on certain points was more important than the eventual outcome.

But what I don't approve of, though, is 'talking pleasure' out of destroying someone else's world-view - especially if it's heart-felt, and obviously a central part of one's life.

I too was challenged on my mission and I'm grateful for it. I don't know if my challengers "took pleasure" in this, but I think it likely that some of them did. So what if they did? As long as it wasn't directed at me personally -- as long as they didn't call me "stupid" or "evil" or throw turds at me -- why should their challenging words offend? I was a missionary and it was part of my position to be challenged. If I could meet them now I would thank them for giving me information and view points that made me think outside the Happy-Valley-missionary world I was living in, which was, unfortunately, a central part of my life.

If I focus on B&L's real actions, I don't find anything to fault. Only if I pretend to be inside his head, pretend to know the circuit between his motivations, his actions, and his pleasures and everything that entails -- only then can there be something to fault, maybe. But because this requires "pretend" I comfortably reject it.

Whatever. Of course you wouldn't find anything at fault. It's sick that he finds what he's doing funny. He's not doing it to educate, because if he did, his actions would be sincerely gentle. Again, I'm so sorry for all the pain the church has caused, but you all are not justified in your actions of seeking out people who've done nothing to you, for the sole purpose of trying to get them to experience what you did. It's not going to make your experience worth it, it won't make it go away, it won't make it hurt less.

I don't mind people challenging my worldview. But what I have a problem with is people who come to me, mind made up about my beliefs and mentality, ready to make trouble. Dialogue is one thing. B&L is not and has not done that. He's being malicious, and I don't think it's right.

[_Boaz & Lidia]

I don't disapprove of challenging missionaries. At all.
I was challenged on my mission - and I believe it helped me. I don't mean in the sense of it 'helping me out of the church' - it helped me think about certain issues one way or the other. The fact that I thought long and hard on certain points was more important than the eventual outcome.

But what I don't approve of, though, is 'talking pleasure' out of destroying someone else's world-view - especially if it's heart-felt, and obviously a central part of one's life.

The missionaries do exactly that. The religion that you belong to and believe in is NOT complete and part of the great apostacy!