beastie wrote:When people say that RFM serves no purpose other than to inflame hatred, aren't they saying it shouldn't exist? (I'm not sure whether you've been that categoric or not, but others have) I mean, is there any valid reason a place that only inflames hatred SHOULD exist? (speaking in terms of ethic and morality, of course)
Beastie, let me put it to you this way, I don't think Ed Decker shouldn't exist. I don't think any anti-Mormon shouldn't exist. And the fact that RFM does play a role in helping some people, means that it should exist. Of course. I am questioning its methods. I listened to Simon Southerton's talk on audio a couple of weeks ago, and I also read his comments about RFM. I don't think he's real impressed with RFM. I got this from Samuel the Utahnite's blog. Simon praised Mormon
Newsweek journalist Elise Soukup's article on the Mormons. You can read his emails here:
http://mormontruth.blogspot.com/2005/10 ... sweek.htmlNow I've had a few clashes with Sam on the old MDB, so his assessment of RFM came as somewhat of a surprise to me, on this particular subject of Southerton that is:
Now, over on the "RFM" board, people pretty much let Simon have it and frankly, that pissed me off. Simon has done so much for so many of us by writing his book, "Losing a Lost Tribe" proving that there is no DNA link between the Native Americans and Israelites but instead that they are related to Asians through extensive DNA studies. I thought the criticism of him for his views of the Newsweek article by Elise Soukup was unwarranted and ridiculous!! The very fact that he even shared personal email interaction that he had with Elise, was admirable to say the least. Simon simply expressed what he felt and got destroyed for it, by a bunch of rabid dogs that only wanted one thing from Elise, a massive, anger ridden, anti-Mormon tell all article about the Mormon Church.
I also read his RFM exchanges where he discussed this. My respect for Sam shot up about ten notches. It's not that I want him to be pro-Mormon, but I think his response to the angry reactions to Southerton took some guts. Here was an exmo, a blogger at that, prepared to risk the wrath of fellow exmos (which he got) to defend Southerton. I'll say something else about Southerton, he's an Aussie like me, and for some reason Aussie exmos seldom show the sort of anger that you see on RFM. It's not that there are less exmos in Australia, per capita, I think it's just that they tend to be less vocal. As I mentioned before, the only exmo site started in Australia, about six years ago, went dead for a lack of interest. The only anti-Mormon newsletter started went out of business. I have also noticed that most, if not all, of the Australians I have met on exmo boards have stopped posting. I'm sure some I don't know are. I know one I email now and he only reads the board, and as far as I know doesn't participate, and he is the one who alerted me to Southerton's talk. Listening to Simon speak I sensed not one drop of anger or bitterness, and you can see from his replies to Elise Soukup he was courteous. Funny enough, both Brent Metcalfe and Dan Vogel have had less than charming experiences on RFM, and I suspect their assessment is the same as Simon's. I have also had feedback from many exmos who posted on RFM over the years, and they all told me the same thing - the negativity. Some have even said it's counterproductive to exmos. Granted, some still get their "hit" from RFM, and even their initial healing. Let me quote an excerpt from Simon's email, about RFM:
Most of us on RfM are very biased in our opinions. We might be right but we are very biased!
I agree. But then, FAIRites are also biased. In fact I saw a "beauty" of a thread the other day on FAIR condemning "liberals" in the church, and this only reinforces what I already know among the less tolerant. So this is not just a FAIR or RFM problem, it's a human problem. We need more balanced voices on both sides, but like you I'm not very hopeful. Unfortunately. I think people like Simon have it right, and we need more like him, but you have seen the reaction from RFM, and I wonder if this is not exactly what you say - the tribal mentality. I think you're right there.
Do you agree with my assessment of the obsession on here about FAIR, by the way? I am far from a board expert and I rarely go into the telestial forum, so I can't speak about that, but on this particular forum, it does seem to me that the obsession with FAIR is focused on certain arguments that have been repeatedly made in the past. (like Juliann's apostate narrative)
Here was your earlier assessment of FAIR:
The criticisms about FAIR have to do with specific claims apologists are making over there, and the fact that, despite being supposedly for both believers and critics, the moderation is unreasonably biased towards believers. Or the criticisms are directed towards one poster in particular, making unsupported claims.
Sure, I've clashed with Juliann before, on ZLMB, which you know all about, and I do understand the reactions. But on FAIR it has been a different story. Going on FAIR changed many of my opinions of Mormons (on the net, internet Mormons), and I have to say, though I was critical many times, I was tolerated, even when some had pathetic opinions of some of my posts. I don't know, maybe I'm like The Dude in some ways? Yet he is even more critical than I ever was. So this experience is what changed me, and my attitudes. It was totally different to ZLMB. So perhaps I can understand, especially in your case, why you feel the way you do. It's a natural reaction. But I do find the "Juliann threads" exceptionally boring, to the point where I stopped reading them. I mean, she doesn't even come here, never replies to posts about her, so when is the dead horse flogging going to stop? I'm not talking about Wade, Wade is here and can speak for himself, and I realise that Wade is the one carrying on the "Juliann debate", in her absence. But it's even the very starting of these endless threads. How long has it been going on? Anyway, it's a free speech board. I hardly even read those threads much, because it's the same thing over and over. Some might say I'm just as obsessed with RFM, well truth be told, I find RFM exceptionally boring, with the exception of some very good threads which are informative, but so few and far between. (I do find Tal's thread on the feds interesting debate) I find most of the threads, on any given day to be, on page one (I seldom make page two), almost petty complaints against the church. Often nitpicking.
It is true that the critics make FAIR. If FAIR had no critics, it would die. So the assessment that FAIR wants to get rid of critics, is not one that floats with me, but I do think they are selective in which critics they ban, and that's the complaint here. If not, correct me.
I can tell you why this board is more obsessed with FAIR than RFM. The posters here, for whatever reasons, LIKE to be able to interact/discuss/debate with believers, whereas the vast majority of RFMesr DO NOT. That is the RFM distinction that some of its most vocal critics have never grasped. They don't WANT to debate Mormons. They don't WANT to hear pro-mormon arguments.
I have no problem with that. I haven't posted on RFM since 2002. What I am discussing in this context is whether this is the best healing process.
Maybe this analogy would help - people going through divorce go through a very similiar emotional process that people who leave the church go through, in my opinion.
I know, I've been through both.
Some people have not decided whether or not to divorce, and want to hear input from both sides. Or some people are more interested in divorce due to sociological aspects, not because it's a personal issue for them at the moment. These people are more likely to be open to hearing BOTH sides of the story - for example, discussing the past research into the impact of divorce on children. Or studies regarding how/if exspouses go on to find a new partner, or find happiness, at some point in the future. But then another group of people have concluded that divorce is their only option, and they don't really want to hear BOTH sides. So to be presented with studies about how divorce can negatively impact children, or what percentage of divorcees never go on to have a satisfactory relationship feels cruel to them, because divorce IS their only option at that point. They just want to be able to fully feel their grief, anger, and confusion among other people who are going through the same thing, so will ALLOW those feelings to be expressed without trying to shut them down. Our society doesn't like negative emotions. We decide that it's "ok" for negative emotions to be felt, and maybe politely expressed, for X amount of time, but if your emotions are stronger than polite, or last longer than society is comfortable with, often society pressures you to stop. It's time to move on. So it's safer to express these negative feelings in a place where other people are going through the same thing, because they are less likely to shut you down.
Beastie, you're not telling me anything I don't know. I am a "veteran", if you like, of both leaving the church, and a bitter divorce (and I'll ignore the sarcastic and nitwit comments of a small minded poster about that on this thread, thank God you have more sense than her and can at least reason), and the question I ask is - what about the children? One thing I learned early in divorce, from many wise people, is "never, ever, vent in front of your children". So what I'm saying is, is venting helpful, or can it be hurtful sometimes? I think this is what Wade is trying to address. The "let it all hang out" idea, especially in a large group like RFM, may in the long term be hurtful to numerous people, rather than helpful.
Especially when spouses of those venting on RFM know they're doing it, and may still be active Mormons, can you imagine how hurtful this may be for them? Or does venting take precedence?
Negative emotions aren't good or bad. They just are. They demand to be recognized. If they are not, at some point, recognized and FELT, they tend to leak out in other ways that negatively impact functioning, like passive-aggressive behavior.
I totally agree. But don't you think there should be a limit concerning where and when? Do we walk down the street and tell everyone "my ex-husband/ex-wife is a bitch/bastard"? I don't think this is the solution, and nor do I believe that directing enormous public anger at the church is the solution, either. Now let me put another point to you. Yesterday I saw a thread titled: " Now that Krispy Kremes is bankrupt, what will DCP choke on?" Now this thread is fairly light-hearted and innocuous, but it's only one example of the demonisation of a Mormon,
not the church, and the irony is that DCP does not even eat Krispy Kremes, but as I say, this is nothing to the insulting and slanderous and unforgivable comments made previously about a man who just happens to be Mormon, and have a wife and family, and I know for a FACT that his wife has seen these continuing insults and slander and has been hurt by them. You are a woman and a mother, surely you must understand this. These are not doctrinal or historical issues, these are not doctrinal replies, these are sarcastic, cutting and offensive comments - all in the name of "recovery". Thankfully, some principled people have stood up to this and condemned it. This is not a one off, this is obsessive, continuing slander. That is why I said earlier that Mormons like Pahoran are "Mormon Terminators" created by this very thing! I sometimes cringe when Pahoran attacks people on this board, but I know why he's doing it. No one will stand up for some decency and stop these vicious attacks. I know you'll probably have a lot to say about how the church hurt these people, but again we are going to come back to what this thread is about - is this the most effective way to heal?
So people who went to FAIR - people like me, for example - aren't at the point in their lives where RFM suits their needs or desires. For whatever reason, they want to talk to believers and hear their thoughts. So FAIR is set up to create discontent among exbelievers who have that desire because it pretends to be a place where that can happen, but, in reality, it is a place wherein the moderation is so biased and imbalanced that it exbelievers walk a constant tightrope, and have to tolerate a certain degree of disrespectful behavior from believers.
Yes, I agree with you about that "certain degree of disrespectful behavior", and I have never seen you disrespectful to Mormons on FAIR, and in your case you have a legitimate complaint.
Compare the reaction to FAIR to the reaction to the old ZLMB board. Do you see the same level of obsession? No, because ZLMB actually was what it advertised. When it failed, people regretted it, but it hardly remained a topic of conversation like FAIR is. Human beings love to expose hypocrisy in one another.
I believe FAIR was created with very different motives and aims, and their rules are different. They do have what may be considered a contradictory rule, come and debate, but we can ban who we like, and if they don't like you, or what you say, you're gone.
But even aside from that, I do think that the obsession with FAIR is really the desire to talk about certain of their topics that are raised, over and over. I won't post on FAIR, but they do raise interesting topics sometimes that I like to discuss. So I will discuss it here. That isn't the same type of obsession that I see about RFM. Honestly, it looks to me like there are some believers who are absolutely obsessed with RFM and apostates in general. They aren't really interested in discussing specific topics that challenge LDS belief, but rather discuss the exbelievers themselves. Wade fully admits this. Juliann should admit it if she doesn't. And there are a handful of others who seem to constantly read RFM and every now and then blow up about it. Really. Why torment yourself like that? If you think it is a hate cesspool, why keep bathing in it, and then bringing it up to others, maybe inviting them to go over and take a sniff for themselves? Is it just to reassure yourself that all the negative stereotypes that the LDS church has taught about exbelievers are true, after all, and so it's ok to not reject those same stereotypes? What is it? Is it a way of reassuring yourself that the church is "true", after all, because look at the hatred exbelievers have - it must be from Satan?
I am interested in debating the issues, and if you look on this board, and on Kevin's board, you'll see that I did many threads about Mormonism and religion in general, and some quite critical. I am more interested in issues than debating about personalities, and there seems to be an obsession here about personalities. I don't start threads here about Steve Benson or Tal Bachman and try to put them up to shame or expose them as hypocrites. I did do it to Benson ONCE on FAIR, and that was within a thread. In fact I haven't done one thread on RFM here, though I have been thinking about it to counter some of the FAIR-bashing. If Mormons do become "obsessed" with RFM it may be because RFM is obsessed about them. The attacks on the church, and they are attacks, all in the name of "recovery", come mainly from RFM. Anyone can see that. I am not interested in defending the "true church", and some ex-believers do have hatred, but I don't put that down to "Satan". What I am questioning is the chosen method of healing, and especially of critical comments even from exmos, whether RFM is really doing exmos a service, or is just making them more angry at the church. I think the latter.
Over to you.