Plutarch Wants to Debate McCue or Bachman

[_MormonMendacity]

Tal, I got 20 bucks that says he'll just call you a coward again.

Keep your 20 bucks. He called him "loquacious". It's not the same.

[_Tal Bachman]

Listen Plutarch - I'm sorry if I came down on you too hard. I'm just trying to be honest with you. I'd much rather be buds with you than enemies, even if we never meet in real life.

If you are real, I admire that you are willing to defend what you believe is the only true religion in the world. I am also happy to discuss any part of it you'd like to; but you see, I have this little rule I adopted for myself, and it's really stood me in good stead. Begging pardon for prolixity, perhaps I can explain it.

After I came to the conclusion that I had been wrong about everything that was most important to me in life, I began to post online on the RFM board. I then began to get all sorts of emails from church members, even FARMS writers. I responded, but my reading of FARMS material had already left me with the terrible feeling that it wasn't so much about finding the truth for them, as it was about just "defending Mormonism". But anyone can "defend Mormonism". Anyone can defend anything. It's like high school debate class, where the teacher asks you to debate the opposite of your own position. I didn't want to talk to guys who were only interested in "defending" something, because it meant that there was not necessarily any attachment there to reality, to facts, to truth, at all. Does that make sense?

I wanted to know what was real, what was true. I didn't want to be "right". I just wanted to know what was going on. I'd made every important decision of my life based on the church and its teachings, and I found myself in my mid-thirties, the father of (then) seven children, feeling totally forlorn, with no idea of how to make sense of anything. I didn't want to "belong to a pack", or "stomp someone", or "win a debate", or anything like that. I just wanted to know what was true.

I quickly saw that most members who emailed me seemed only to want to argue. I didn't want to argue. I still don't want to argue for argument's sake. I just want to know what's true, and understand things. That's why I wanted to interview some of the guys on here.

Anyway, I began asking members who emailed me whether they would even want to know if the church was a fraud. A few said no. Some wouldn't answer and kept trying to change the subject. And my friend, I decided it was pointless then to try to engage with those folks, since they had entirely different goals than I had. They seemed to wish only to buttress their belief, period - but I wanted to find out what was true. I'm not saying one position is necessarily more virtuous than another - only pointing out that it seemed "debate" or argument with those who seemed indifferent in the end, was pointless.

But there is another reason why I ask those types of questions. Finding out the church isn't what you thought, really, really - really - hurts. And you cry. And it rocks your relationships - really, your whole life. At one stroke you lose friends, identity, self-image, belonging...and in some cases, the shock and hurt are so great, that folks can't handle it. So one reason I ask whether someone would want to know if the church was a fraud if it was, is because if they say "no, I wouldn't want to know", I presume that they might actually be far better off never knowing. I wonder if maybe their subconscious minds have made some kind of accurate calculation...And perhaps in those cases, it is better to remain silent. After all, there are far worse things than devoting your life to a church, however fraudulent it may be.

Let's be friends, Plutarch. I don't want to trade shots with you. And if you feel you would want to know if Mormonism was a fraud in the chance it was, and thus have the same goal as I do - understanding things and discovering truth - I have all the time in the world to talk to you on here.

I mean it.

Best,

Tal

[_Ray A]

Tal, I know your post was directed to Plutarch, but it gave me a much better understanding of where you're coming from. I do have a couple of questions: Do you think you sometimes come down too hard (on RFM) on your ex-Mormon experience? Do you think sarcasm to your former beliefs is a good thing?

[_Tal Bachman]

Hi Ray

I'm not sure I know what you mean by "coming down too hard on my ex-Mormon experience". I've been pretty frank about it - it sucked finding out I was wrong about everything that was most important to me in life, and I cried and felt like vomiting for weeks. That wasn't overstating it, that's just what happened. Regarding speaking sarcastically of my former beliefs, I guess I do think my former self deserves some sarcasm for much of what I did and believed - probably just like my present self does :P.

Why? Are you thinking of something in particular from the RFM board?

[_Ray A]

Why? Are you thinking of something in particular from the RFM board?

Tal, no I'm not thinking of any particular post, but I have seen sarcasm from you, but I'll accept your word about the disillusionment you felt. Maybe you need to express this, but there's a kind of irony about RFM posters, and some who come here, that they express the feeling "how could anyone believe this **** unless they are braindead?" What I point out is that they once believed it. It's like the old saying, "don't question your wife's judgement - look who she married". I know you didn't choose the church, as you were born into it, but you were a believer until some six or seven years ago? People, in general, do not respect those who turn on a church they formerly belonged to. All I am saying is don't mock what you once believed to be the absolute truth. There needs to be a sort of humility in recognising that you should have realised this long before you did. Not necessarily you specifically, but anyone. Therefore an exmo, more than anyone, should realise why the believer believes. Most of the time it's because of an inner conviction, not necessarily logic, and that's why many continue to believe. It brings them inner satisfaction, peace, and meaning in life. I see no problem in disagreement, and outling in detail why you no longer believe, but the RFM mentality is degrading to Mormons, it is insulting and offensive. State your case, and do so as eloquently as you can, but base attacks on Mormonism, or Mormon scholars like Dan Peterson will do your credibility no good. Dan only sees you as attacking "his" church, his credibility, and that's why he responds to you the way he does. I know Dan reasonably well, and he's not a person who holds hatreds, but his convictions are pretty strong, and when he says anything derogatory about you, or RFM, it's because he felt first attacked.

I know you'll probably argue, well what's the difference between sarcasm and open criticism on an intellectual level. It still offends, doesn't it? Well my response to that is there's a difference between actively cutting down a person, or a church, attacking their personal integrity and choice of lifestyle, and well-reasoned argument. I would rather be persona non grata for intellectual reasons than for sarcasm and personal attacks on someone's beliefs. To me, maybe not to you, I view RFM as a bastion of bitterness and hatred. Nearly every post I see there is a personal affront and attack on Mormons, and insultingly so. I think I can state my differences without offensiveness. I will heretically say that I have a high regard for Mormons as far as personal morality is concerned, and the integrity of their lifestyle. At least those who live it. Polygamy Porter, I think it was, posted a YouTube clip of elderly missionary couples. When I viewed this clip I could see the emotional influence this would have on Mormons. But these people are fulfilled, happy, convinced that what they are doing is right and good. Do I have to accept it? NO! Can we have some respect for their chosen lifestyle? I have known many elderly missionary couples, one of them helped me through divorce, and their kindness was based on their theology. So what? I think they would have helped me anyway, because of their humanity. Remember, in the end we are all human, and we cling to "theologies of salvation". Does this mitigate inherent goodness? Do all Mormons act out of "ulterior motives"? I think not. In this war of words and debate about theology, I think we should realise that there are people "on the other end" with, believe it or not, feelings. People who believe as you once believed, and it brings much nobility to their lives.

I am not blind to the religious bigotry, and I will oppose it. But Mormonism is a very practical religion. It does not have the excesses of Islam, for example. It has dissenters and renegades, alternative thinkers and liberals, and a strong tradition of questioning, right from Brigham Young who said do not take everything we say as gospel, and I am more afraid that the people accept what we say without question. Yes, Brigham was the one who said to listen to what scientists are saying about the age of the earth. I think Brigham would have been the first to question Joseph Fielding Smith's theories of a young earth based on Velikovski's theories. B.H. Roberts played "devil's advocate", and arrived at some very "unMormon" theories about the production of the Book of Mormon. Why did he stick with Mormonism? Because, as he said, Mormonism is a "thinking man's religion". In other words, it's not limited to what we hear in Sunday School.

Yet on RFM I see all these parodies and insults. Is that the crowd you want to be with, Tal? You're obviously an intelligent person suffering hurt. But think of all the good qualities your Mormon upbringing gave you. Your whole life has been shaped by Mormonism. Your family, your earliest experiences, your perception of the world, your values. Remember the old primary songs.

I am a child of God,
And he has sent me here,
Has given me an earthly home
With parents kind and dear.
Lead me, guide me, walk beside me,
Help me find the way.
Teach me all that I must do
To live with him someday.

Is this what exmos are demonising? All I am saying to exmos is temper your sarcasm, your bitterness, your hatred, for being "deceived". You were instilled with good values. You come from a rich religious tradition. It is the best we can do in this world. Your parents gave you their heart and soul, and what they felt was best for you. Why demonise it? Thank them for what they gave you. But if you must, then respectfully disagree. Don't be sarcastic to people who loved you and sought your welfare in the only ways they knew how.

[MODERATOR NOTE: If you must use the "S" word, please do so in the Telestial Forum only, not here. Thanks!]

[_Phaedrus Ut]

Plutarch,

I'm obviously neither Tal nor Bob but I'd be happy to take you up on your offer. I don't recognize your name but I've been a participant at FAIR for over 3 years and was on ZLMB prior to that.

I will agree to the terms in the OP. Additionally I will provide reference and citation for all claims. I will clearly state anytime when I am speaking of my opinion or personal experience.

I am willing to address:

• Historicity of the Book of Mormon.
• Archeology and the Book of Mormon.
• Linguistic analysis of the Book of Mormon, D&C, & PoGP.
• Church history from First Vision, to Polygamy, to Priesthood restoration.
• KJV translation issues in the Book of Mormon.
• Judaism/Christianity as portrayed in the Book of Mormon.
• The Book of Mormon from source critical or form critical perspective.
• Chiasmus.
• NHM as Nahom from the Book of Mormon.
• Limited Geography Theory.
• Egyptology and the Book of Abraham.
• Masonic influence in the temple or anti-masonic rhetoric in the Book of Mormon.
• Isaiah in the Book of Mormon.
• Church Presidents from Joseph Smith to Gordon B. Hinkley

Those are just suggestions. I'm open to any topic of your choice. Start a thread I'm down to boogie :)



Phaedrus

[_MormonMendacity]

What I point out is that they once believed it. It's like the old saying, "don't question your wife's judgement - look who she married".

Ray, you don't need to point it out. I don't know any exmos who aren't painfully aware of their own, ultimately, willful participation in Mormonism. I doubt you've ever pointed that out to an exmo who said, "Hey! I never thought of that before!"

In my case some of the sarcasm developed over time with the contempt shown me by my former Mormon brethren because I was a deserter. I don't blame them and accuse them of "starting it" but I do think that both sides (yours too) is guilty of sarcasm, contempt and ridicule of us who may have thoughtfully considered Mormonism's claims -- after years of blindly living them -- and decided to move on.

I don't proseltyze my South Jordan neighbors and encourage them to leave the fold. When they proselytize me I explain I've left and some want to discuss. Some discuss kindly and some take offense. It's not my mission to deconvert people who enjoy the Church -- although I see in many of them the undercurrents of discontent that I had at being a dedicated Mormon.

...my response to that is there's a difference between actively cutting down a person, or a church, attacking their personal integrity and choice of lifestyle, and well-reasoned argument.

That accusation gets tossed a lot but the examples are few and far between...unless you're grouping those who don't engage in those activities with the ones who do. "Choice of a lifestyle" assumes "choice". I was born and raised in the Church, so the choice was not an authentic choice -- it was a part of my cultural upbringing.

Most of us -- and I feel really safe in claiming that -- do not appear at conference desecrating garments in front of conference goers.

I view RFM as a bastion of bitterness and hatred. Nearly every post I see there is a personal affront and attack on Mormons, and insultingly so.

Why do you go there? How can it be an affront to you? If we walked into your home and turned on your computer and opened up RfM and commanded you to read it, that would certainly be an affront. But when we compare Joseph's First Vision account "...their creeds are an abomination..." isn't that an affront? And perhaps more insulting to Christians who are told it wasn't Smith who said it...but their very own GOD?

Can you say "hypocrisy"?

Stay away from RfM. It can't be an affront if you are not exposed to it. Some of these people are real people -- just like you. Many of them feel they have some reasons to be angry.

The rest of your post is open to the same critical view that it lacks introspection and objectivity.

Until exmormons are taking over your computer or pounding their posts on your front door, don't consider it an in-your-face attack on you. Just consider it healthy venting.

[_Ray A]

In my case some of the sarcasm developed over time with the contempt shown me by my former Mormon brethren because I was a deserter. I don't blame them and accuse them of "starting it" but I do think that both sides (yours too) is guilty of sarcasm, contempt and ridicule of us who may have thoughtfully considered Mormonism's claims -- after years of blindly living them -- and decided to move on.

MM, they may have considered you a "deserter", but did you consider yourself a deserter? I didn't, and I first walked from the church in 1987. I am not on any side. If I am, I'm on the side that makes the best points in debate. I think it was your brief exit bio that I read on another thread, and I thought that was well written. It had far more impact than sarcasm. Some of the caricatures are funny, and I think even Mormons will laugh at them....but there's a line, and some don't know what it is. Nevertheless, it's a free speech forum, where I get to voice my opinion too.

I don't proseltyze my South Jordan neighbors and encourage them to leave the fold. When they proselytize me I explain I've left and some want to discuss. Some discuss kindly and some take offense. It's not my mission to deconvert people who enjoy the Church -- although I see in many of them the undercurrents of discontent that I had at being a dedicated Mormon.

That's a good approach to take, I am the same way, and I do see "undercurrents of discontent" too.

...my response to that is there's a difference between actively cutting down a person, or a church, attacking their personal integrity and choice of lifestyle, and well-reasoned argument.

That accusation gets tossed a lot but the examples are few and far between...unless you're grouping those who don't engage in those activities with the ones who do. "Choice of a lifestyle" assumes "choice". I was born and raised in the Church, so the choice was not an authentic choice -- it was a part of my cultural upbringing.

Most of us -- and I feel really safe in claiming that -- do not appear at conference desecrating garments in front of conference goers.

There are some who go too far, and I'm not grouping anyone, except RFM.

I view RFM as a bastion of bitterness and hatred. Nearly every post I see there is a personal affront and attack on Mormons, and insultingly so.

Why do you go there? How can it be an affront to you? If we walked into your home and turned on your computer and opened up RfM and commanded you to read it, that would certainly be an affront. But when we compare Joseph's First Vision account "...their creeds are an abomination..." isn't that an affront? And perhaps more insulting to Christians who are told it wasn't Smith who said it...but their very own GOD?

Can you say "hypocrisy"?

Stay away from RfM. It can't be an affront if you are not exposed to it. Some of these people are real people -- just like you. Many of them feel they have some reasons to be angry.

The rest of your post is open to the same critical view that it lacks introspection and objectivity.

Until exmormons are taking over your computer or pounding their posts on your front door, don't consider it an in-your-face attack on you. Just consider it healthy venting.

Why do critics go on FAIR? The same question could be asked there, perhaps? Why do posters on RFM slander and defame Mormons? Right up to the prophet. Why is Dr. Peterson singled out more than most? Do you think he and others have feelings? RFM is a public forum, isn't it? Anyone can view it. A Mormon kid in high school can find it. The relatives of the people being slandered can find it. What if your real name, not your forum pseudonym, was posted all over FAIR and you were called a bigot, an under achiever, swine, a liar, dishonest, a charlatan, a pseudo-scholar, would you say, that's fine, no one has to go to FAIR? The Mormons on FAIR won't come pounding on your front door? I am not defending FAIR, nor Dan Peterson in particular, I'm using examples.
I can empathise with your exit from the church, and what you went through, but I cannot empathise with all of the hate I see coming from RFM. Is this what some exmos call "venting", or revenge? We will have to disagree there. Maybe some do genuinely vent, but I have serious doubts this can be called "recovery". Maybe what many of them really need is a trip to a shrink, and a non-Mormon one. At any rate it seems to be popular with many exmos, and I will give credit to a very small minority of posts which have much substance, but they are all too rare. It is however, worth going there to see those minority posts. I hear that even Simon Southerton didn't feel very welcome there, and he, like me, is an exmo.

[_MormonMendacity]

Thanks, Ray. I appreciate your comments and the clarification.

Why do critics go on FAIR? The same question could be asked there, perhaps? Why do posters on RFM slander and defame Mormons? Right up to the prophet. Why is Dr. Peterson singled out more than most? Do you think he and others have feelings? RFM is a public forum, isn't it? Anyone can view it. A Mormon kid in high school can find it. The relatives of the people being slandered can find it. What if your real name, not your forum pseudonym, was posted all over FAIR and you were called a bigot, an under achiever, swine, a liar, dishonest, a charlatan, a pseudo-scholar, would you say, that's fine, no one has to go to FAIR? The Mormons on FAIR won't come pounding on your front door? I am not defending FAIR, nor Dan Peterson in particular, I'm using examples.

This is not a defense, but the Internet is not like any playground ever built before by man. Message boards open the door to releasing pent up emotions -- and I think it's good.

I agree that there can be fallout as you described. The what-ifs are good to consider from both a moral and ethical standpoint -- but where is the evaluation of the benefit that kind of venting may do? You seem to think there is none or that it does not outweigh the impact of the slander and defamation.

I know a lot of people on RfM who will post about their own struggles but won't post anything critical of the Church. I think they have drawn a moral line in the sand -- as it appears you have, too. Whatever the case -- and I value your insight in helping me develop my opinion on this -- the bigger question for me is whether the Church is doing anything to ameliorate these causes and effects or whether it is continuing its specious role of innocent bystander.

What is "recovery"? How did you cope with the your feelings? Do our various support systems help us or fail us and how?

I can empathise with your exit from the church, and what you went through, but I cannot empathise with all of the hate I see coming from RFM. Is this what some exmos call "venting", or revenge?

What you see as hate I see as hurt. We'll just have to disagree on that.

"I hate the Mormon Church" is rarely said and when it is, we all know that is exactly venting. Few people advocate any kind of physical harm -- and those that do seem to be quickly addressed, in my humble opinion. Emotional harm is often discussed and sometimes advocated. Maybe it's part of recovery to want restitution for real or imagined injuries. I'm not an expert but I don't see a lot of Mormon experts on there working without exposing themselves helping get people better, do you?

Maybe some do genuinely vent, but I have serious doubts this can be called "recovery". Maybe what many of them really need is a trip to a shrink, and a non-Mormon one.

I don't know what recovery is. I still spend a lot of time thinking about it. I do see a shrink and again I ask, "Where is the Mormon Church in all this?" Where are the professional shrinks helping people get out? Their lay clergy is not trained to help someone exit, much less deal with mental stress caused by the dissonance they may be experiencing. For the longest time the Church excommunicated people who had doubts or wanted out of the Church and you and I both know that excommunication is considered the strongest form of punishment that a person can receive. How helpful is that in defusing anger?

I hear that even Simon Southerton didn't feel very welcome there, and he, like me, is an exmo.

I don't know what the "even" means. We're all just people, Ray. I don't want to hurt any Mormons but I don't think RfM should cause them (or you and Simon) the kind of displeasure it seems to. The moment someone on there starts planning an act that violates the law, I will be standing next to you questioning its value as a recovery tool.

[NorthboundZax]

Hi Ray

Thanks for the comments. Here is my response.

First, I don't own the RFM site, I don't run it, I have absolutely no pull whatsoever on what happens there, and the reason I know that is because on many occasions I have made suggestions to the moderators and to the owner, not one of which has ever been implemented. In short, I cannot answer for what happens on the RFM board because I don't represent it at all. But, I can tell you this - many people have had very traumatic experiences as Mormons. I never did, you never did, but others have.

Some folks, for example, were molested as youths by bishops or Scout leaders, reported that abuse to an ecclesiastical superior, and not only was nothing ever done, but they were not taken seriously or were even told to keep quiet, etc. In short, when they went to the only people they knew of who could help, those people sided with the perpetrators. Some people feel that any religion which is only now starting to implement protocols for squashing "let's keep the church looking good" molestation cover-ups really has a problem. I know that's kind of an extreme example, but all sorts of things like that have happened. I know of a few RFM ladies who married men that their bishops knew were gay, but the bishops encouraged the marriage anyway without telling the naïve girls, on the supposition that marriage would "cure gayness". Then, ten years later, these women with three or four little kids, find out their whole marriages have been - well, something other than what they thought, and to be honest, what they deserved. And their husbands leave them, for men. So sometimes people pop off. I imagine they might feel as you would, if you'd been sodomized routinely by a teacher at an all-male boarding school, and when you told the headmaster, he promoted your abuser and told you in effect to keep quiet - which you did. Later you'd feel rotten, wouldn't you? You might say that your school was a sick place and speak ill of it. And frankly, you'd be right - just like many RFM posters are right.

About what you appear to think is a "gotcha" retort to ex-Mormons who say people must be "braindead" to believe some of this stuff (which I haven't heard ever put that strongly, but...): it's no "gotcha" at all, because every former Mormon is referring to himself as well as everyone else when they say that. Do you not understand that it is embarrassing to realize what nonsense you once believed in? Or that it can even be horrifying to contemplate what you might have done "if the prophet had asked"? It's like waking up and finding out you just fried someone to death in those Stanley Milgram experiments.

That embarrassment, as well as the pain of realizing you were so wrong about so much, and all the difficulties that realization can produce in your life, is also what accounts for humour about the church, including caustic or sarcastic humour. Sometimes, to just have a chuckle about it all makes the project of trying to assemble a life just after finding out you spent years in a cult you had no idea was a cult, a bit easier. Does that not make sense to you?

I only wish that the lyrics you quote from "I Am A Child of God" "equalled" Mormonism. Of course they do not, and to present it as a symbol of Mormonism I think is very deceptive and unbecoming. If it is a symbol of anything Mormon, it is only of its patina. The rest of the story is hinted at in fact by other songs in the primary hymnal, which point to the far more disturbing elements of Mormonism. "Follow the Prophet" might be the best example of the underlying potentially "Jonestown-style" psycho-social dynamics inherent in any authoritarian loyalty cult, and in this case, Mormonism. It might be alright to chant "follow the prophet" if the man reputed to be a prophet actually was a "prophet", and actually was being prohibited by an omnipotent deity from "leading the church astray". But Ray, that is not the case, not with Hinckley, nor as far as I can tell, with any other self-styled "holy man" on this planet. Because there is no reason to believe any mortal is being prohibited by God from "leading us astray", the sooner individual human beings cease allowing their own individual consciences to be subsumed into someone else's, the better off I suggest we will all be.

One final point on sarcasm. Sarcasm can be an effective tool for making very serious points. Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" is a good example, as well as here in North America, the TV show "The Colbert Report" (in which Colbert is not earnest for a single moment, ever), editorial cartoons, etc. That "some people" are offended by "some sarcasm" goes without saying, since "some people" are offended by anything. That is no reason to stop making serious points, either with the use of sarcasm or without. Ideological fanatics, as you may have noticed in your local Muslim population, are always hyper-sensitive to being offended. Frankly, that might be all the more reason to offend or try to disperse them, since ideological fanaticism almost always sucks. And I would say further that any good produced or championed by some group of ideological fanatics is never the sole property of that group - but often, their lunacy is, making the ideological fanaticism itself at least superfluous, and at most, worthy of immediate disposal. Virtue, after all, in addition to being is its own reward, also exists independently, regardless of any organization's attempt to appropriate it.

It is true that sometimes sarcasm is a very counterproductive tool. For example, you would be certain I was exaggerating if I mentioned how many dozens of emails I've gotten, and RFM posts I've seen, over the past few years, of Mormons who attribute their first jolt out of their stupour (so to speak) to the snide sarcasm of two FAIR posters in particular, one of whom posts here now. No doubt members will enjoy imagining that their subsequent apostacies might have occured anyway, and that these unusually unpleasant church defenders only hastened along the inevitable. I am not so sure about that - I get the impression that a sarcasm-free attempt to resolve sincere concerns on the FAIR boards might have gone a long way. In any case, partly as a result of the rancour and sarcasm employed by folks who appear to be labouring under the delusion that they are doing far more good than harm to the Mormon cause, many dozens of individuals have left the church forever. (But actually it's probably far more - it's only many dozens that I personally know about). This (plus the nearly inevitable lameness of apologetic arguments themselves) is why over the past three years I have steered countless wondering Mormons over to the FARMS and FAIR boards. And I have never heard of one single person who I recommended that to, who didn't come back even more convinced there was something profoundly wrong or untrue about Joseph Smith's church. The arguments suck, and the arguers themselves sound like loons, and often, rancourous loons. It makes it pretty obvious.