FAIR, McCue, and the Law

[_charity]

ha! You are a Molly in anti-Mormon costume! When you made the comment about leaving after the sacrament, it was in the context of boring talks. Not a word about health issues. Remember what I said. We can only know as much about you as you tell us. That was definitely misleading.

I made no comment about talks at all, charity. That was your assumption. I simply said I leave after the sacrament. You made an incorrect assumption. Just because you did not know what my health issues are does not mean I haven't discussed health issues on this board, charity. When I commented that my bishop visits me in my home, rather than call me into his office in the ward building, I was soundly criticized by many such as yourself. Yet those who know how close I live to the edge knew why he calls on me here, instead of at the church.

You assumed something about me, charity, based on what you thought was good intelligence. That many here could have disabused you of that incorrect assumption, but didn't, is a testament to the quality of people on this board. They knew I'd set you straight if it was necessary. They chose to allow me my privacy. You, on the other hand, were so sure I was an apostate in Molly dress, you made an unrighteous judgment that I feel dutybound to correct. Try to not do that again.

Your criticism of the prophets speaks louder than your sacrament meeting practices.

And I never criticized you for the bishop coming to your house. My bishop comes to mine, too. Big deal.

[_harmony]

Your criticism of the prophets speaks louder than your sacrament meeting practices.

As it is intended to. When they do something that warrents criticism, I see no reason to give them a free pass. They are men, they deserve to be judged as such.

[_beastie]

By the way, if someone really did frighten his wife into things, I don't care how nice he was about it. I consider that to be manipulation. I hate manipulation with a passion whether that manipulation consists of physical threats, threats of loss of affection, divorce, or what have you. Parents manipulate their kids all the time by being "disappointed" or "hurt" at their choices. It's a big pet-peeve of mine when people manipulate others that way. I certainly hope Bob didn't do and didn't advocate any sort of manipulation whether it is an overt threat of divorce, or a more subtle threat of "disappointment".

I don't know mccue, and haven't read every single one of his posts, but I seriously doubt that he was manipulating his wife in the manner described. In the posts I've read that mentioned his wife, he's been extremely aware of her well-being, goals, and desires (like the fact that, If I recall correctly, she wanted to live overseas for a while).

And while I know you, asbestosman, would condemn the manipulation if it occurred in reverse - ie, the Mormon spouse manipulating the exmormon spouse in order to coerce them to stay in church - I'm certain that many of the same folks who would condemn bob for similar manipulation (which I don't believe he did, anyway) would be fine with it in reverse.

I think this sort of emotional manipulation is very common in "mixed" marriages. Mixed marriages (between an EXmormon and Mormon) tend to be high stress. The Mormon is hurt by the fact that the spouse has rejected a core, once shared, identity and threatened eternal status, and the exmormon is hurt by the fact that the spouse continues to embrace a system that villifies the "apostate".

[_Some Schmo]

I'm not justifying charges of adultery, which apparently been withdrawn, and probably with good reason. All the exmos wanted to know "the truth" about Hugh Nibley, but a few charges against McCue brings down their unreserved wrath. I would think, as truth-seekers, they might be a little more open-minded, but the exmo defence for Bob seems, to me, to be little different than the apologetic defence of Mormonism. It's almost "faith-promoting". Bob can do no wrong. Again, until there's hard evidence, I think we should all be cautious. But I'm seeing, in some quarters, almost a blind and zealous devotion to McCue, as if he walks on water.

Well, I'm quite certain Bob's human and imperfect, but the fact is, he is as far away from the stereotypical exmo (sinning, adulturing, boozing heathen that Mormons want to call all that have left the church) that it must drive FAIR crazy. Obviously, to come up with the crap they did, they had to pick gnat s*** out of pepper, because there's nothing for them to sink their teeth into. It's also quite telling that they'd attack his character; they certainly have nothing to say about his arguments. They're probably too stupid to really understand them, let alone dispute them.

Bob's a good guy. He just doesn't believe it anymore, he's very thoughtful, and he's not the kind of guy to let his thoughts go unrecorded. It's sad for the church to have such a good person point out all that's wrong with the church, but if the church wasn't so screwed up, they wouldn't have to worry about guys like Bob.

If he's revered by other exmos, it's likely because he's such a fine example of a good, upstanding ex-mormon. Plain and simple.

[_Dr. Shades]

I'm still appalled at the consultation with physicians to get a diagnosis. Those physicians need to be identified and dealt with by their respective medical boards.

Those physicians are the same ones who work for the Center for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders.

[_Alter Idem]

So, is there no way to ACTUALLY read the article in question? The fact that FAIR pulled it gives credence to McCue's claims of libel, but without access to the original article, I don't see how any of the rest of us can weigh in on this.

Sorry, but I refuse to blindly accept McCue's accusations...I'd like to read the offending article myself.

[_Mister Scratch]

Besides, wouldn't we like to see a Christian organization practice Christian values? I don't think there's really a good excuse for what they've done.

I've just read a link with some of McCue's writings, and I am sympathetic to his struggles in exiting the Church, very much so, but some comments were made on MADB, about Bob, which have been described as "disgusting". I have been psychoanalysed on this board, but only because I made an inexcusable "flip flop"

No, Ray. The reason I felt it was interesting to post that "Many Faces of Ray A" post, which is now legendary, partly due to your endless crying about it, was on account of your endless, sanctimonious, judgmental, condescending posts. In particular, your insane "A Mormon Holocaust is on the way!" posts. You were behaving like an imbecile, and, frankly, you deserved a swift kick to the rear, and I was all too happy to deliver it. I will deliver another one to you if you don't straighten up.

(and let's face it, ALL exmos are flip-floppers, including Bob McCue, including me). Had I been an exmo (or sympathetic to continual critical exmo expression which borders on libel, which I'm not), not a word would have been raised.

Bull. It would just be a different set of people doing the "raising". I mean, how many times have we heard TBMs crow about "the turncoat" Kevin Graham?

So, do you think that Mormons should "practise Christianity", and let their critics scott free?

Who is advocating that, Ray? Nobody.

I'm not justifying charges of adultery, which apparently been withdrawn, and probably with good reason. All the exmos wanted to know "the truth" about Hugh Nibley, but a few charges against McCue brings down their unreserved wrath.

Elsewhere, you pooh-poohed away the argument that "family" justifies certain "insider" remarks. Well, with the Martha Beck/Nibley situation, she was family. Was she lying? Perhaps. Was Steve Benson lying? I haven't heard any claims that he was. Now, were the FAIR posters family? No. Were they lying? It seems almost definitely certain that they were. You really *are* justifying this behavior by implication, Ray.

I would think, as truth-seekers, they might be a little more open-minded,

This is what you're advocating? I.e., "Well, we better wait and see, and keep an open mind about Bob McCue beating/manipulating his wife." Last time I checked, the charitable thing to do is to give the other person the benefit of the doubt---something your white-hot rage prevents you from doing.

but the exmo defence for Bob seems, to me, to be little different than the apologetic defence of Mormonism. It's almost "faith-promoting". Bob can do no wrong. Again, until there's hard evidence, I think we should all be cautious. But I'm seeing, in some quarters, almost a blind and zealous devotion to McCue, as if he walks on water.

Right. As usual, this thread has become a referendum on The Trials and Tribulations of Ray A. And you were doing so well---high-minded threads on David Wright and such. But, unfortunately, you are now back to your Gollum-esque, whiny, navel-gazing posts. I think I may need to head back into the ZLMB archives..... Or are you ready to atone for your sanctimoniousness?

[_Nightingale]

Mister Scratch (to Ray):
"This is what you're advocating? I.e., "Well, we better wait and see, and keep an open mind about Bob McCue beating/manipulating his wife."

Whoa, Scratch. Just so you know, the FAIR article did not allege anything about "beating". It did state that Bob McCue was "emotionally abusive" and "manipulative" towards his wife which supposedly resulted in her leaving the church.

Obviously it is difficult when some of the people who wish to discuss the issues around this occurrence did not have an opportunity to read the article in question due to it being withdrawn. I don't see anything wrong with us discussing these important issues that arise as a result of the FAIR article, whether we've read it or not, but as for the actual content, accuracy in terminology would seem to be prudent.

[_asbestosman]

They're probably too stupid to really understand them, let alone dispute them.

Or, if I understand Bob McCue, it's that we're suffering from cog-dis.

It's hard to say if I understand Bob. Being concise isn't his speciality.

[_asbestosman]

And while I know you, asbestosman, would condemn the manipulation if it occurred in reverse - ie, the Mormon spouse manipulating the exmormon spouse in order to coerce them to stay in church - I'm certain that many of the same folks who would condemn bob for similar manipulation (which I don't believe he did, anyway) would be fine with it in reverse.

I think this sort of emotional manipulation is very common in "mixed" marriages. Mixed marriages (between an EXmormon and Mormon) tend to be high stress. The Mormon is hurt by the fact that the spouse has rejected a core, once shared, identity and threatened eternal status, and the exmormon is hurt by the fact that the spouse continues to embrace a system that villifies the "apostate".

It's true that I condemn it in reverse if done to manipulate. I think, however, that sometimes divorce might be the best thing to do if one spouse leaves the church and there are no children at home. I say that because of the amount of stress these marriages will have to endure. I say might be best, I don't say would be best. If they are willing to work it out, I'm all for that too.