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

[_guy sajer]

That's just wonderful, what an enlightening hobby you have, B&L. You spend time trying to deconstruct innocent people's beliefs based on what church they go to, and then once you've done it, laughing all the while at their discomfort, you come here for praise.

I do not get the idea amongst some here that LDS who you do not know, and who have done nothing to you, deserve to be either physically or psychologically harmed. It's funny when they get beat up (KARMA!), it's funny when their houses are vandalized, it's funny when you seek them out to "give them the truth" by placing information contrary to what they've been taught before them in the most disturbing way possible.

And yet it has been bandied about on this board that I have no integrity.

So far as I understand the situation, 'Boaz and Lydia' is a former LDS who has come to the conclusion that his time in the CoJCoLDS was a highly negative experience all round, as well as being based on falsehood. On that basis he thinks it reasonable to discourage people from joining that organisation.

The CoJCOLDS, in an effort to persuade people to join it, maintains a website with an open invitation to 'chat' with someone described as 'a missionary', whose object may reasonably be supposed to be to persuade people that the teachings of the CoJCoLDS are true. That person is presumably there in a volunteer capacity, and can reasonably be presumed to anticipate that he or she may encounter strong unbelief.

'Boaz and Lydia' can, it seems to me, quite properly accept the invitation to 'chat', and in the course of that chat may reasonably make his best efforts to argue against the position that the missionary advocates.

You refer to his dialog with the missionary as "deconstruct[ing] innocent people's beliefs based on what church they go to". The word 'deconstructing' seems misused here (surely you just mean 'arguiing against'?), and 'innocent' is surely irrelevant too - you speak as if B&L had chosen to hit the missionary with a stick in an unprovoked attack, whereas he is in fact simply accepting the open invitation to chat, and then putting forward evidence that the missionary's position (Joseph Smith did not marry a teenage girl) is false. [You then move into irrelevant stuff about other people delighting in physical attacking LDS persons and property, though this is not what B&L is advocating here.] And as for the stuff about "based on what church they go to" - you would hardly have expected B&L to give the missionary a trenchant refutation of (say) the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, would you? He is talking to an LDS, so he discusses what the CoJCoLDS teaches.

You complain about B&L thinking "it's funny when you seek [LDS] out to "give them the truth" by placing information contrary to what they've been taught before them in the most disturbing way possible". Please recall that he is talking to a missionary who has offered to discuss LDS belief with all comers in the hope of converting them. He is not shouting at people in the street, nor appearing on their doorsteps unannounced to offer his message. Why shoudn't he offer the best counterevidence he can?

And frankly I do find it ludicrous, and indeed laughable, that a missionary for the CoJCoLDS can be so ignorant about the history of Joseph Smith, the prophet of the church for which they are proselytizing, that he or she does not know Joseph Smith married a whole lot of women, some of them teenagers, some of them sisters who were his legal wards, If I recall correctly. Anyone that ignorant in such a role cannot complain if their ignorance is sometimes mocked. While I don't have the same motivations and tastes as B&L, I really don't see anything bad about what he has done here.

I think you on the other hand need to ask yourself why the CoJCoLDS is marketing itself using naïve and ill-prepared kids in this way.

I really wish some exmos on here would really get over what the church did to them and move on. B&L is no benignly going about this, but I realize it tittlates. I understand. Way to get back at the establishment!

Every Mormon you come across is deceptive, right? They know that they're living a lie, or they're insane, so why not target them?

I will say this: I think KA's method of "spreading the truth" was far more effective and tactful than B&L. He goes online, pretends to be someone he's not, puts forth contrary information for the sake of doing so, then laughs when someone gives their "testiphony". That word right there should tell you what his intent is.

I'm so sorry for all the immense pain the LDS church has caused folks posting here. I was in that place, the disgusting black whore. But I moved on, and I will NOT abuse my friends, random LDS, or anyone from that church I meet because of my pain. Those people have the right to live their lives out as they see fit, and I am in no place to try to affect that.

But I lack integrity, so forget all I said.

We all know what B&L's intent is. As I said, his ways are not my ways (like you, I prefer to let other people live their lives as they see fit and I don't try to change that), but I don't have this existential angst over what he's doing as you appear to have.

by the way, I have no clue who you are and have no reason to think you lack integrity. I understand where you're coming from, though I see it differently.

I guess I'm out of the loop on the back story here.

[_Sam Harris]

Let me apply the mentality here on this board to my personal life experiences. I was raised in a home where I was stripped naked, beaten, slapped, kicked, and called all sorts of names. The individuals involved lied about it, and convinced my entire family that I was a liar, and that there was something mentally wrong with me.

I had an EXTREMELY negative experience, I suffered mentally, emotionally, and physically. I cannot look back on those days without feeling pain.

But I do not seek to confront my abusers. I have spoken my piece, and I leave it at that. There is still tension there, as I’m dealing with someone who cannot admit her doings for fear of her sanity. I have pity on her.

But using the mindset here, I should find every family member involved and seek to have confrontation with them. Why? BECAUSE THEY WERE INVOLVED! I should make sure that they KNOW THE TRUTH! I should spend inordinate amounts of time trying to change the minds of people who ultimately don’t have to be worth a damn, so I personally am validated.

Does it hurt that I live a lie in these people’s presence? Yes. Which is why I MOVED AWAY FROM IT. But at the same time, I realize that my life is much more peaceful than theirs, and the knowledge that am not trapped inside the same kind of mental issues that they are is comfort enough.

Perhaps I should set up a chat room for my family, go in with the pretense that I “just want to talk”, and proceed to shatter illusions and put people into mental anguish that they really don’t deserve.

Every human being on this earth is working with the knowledge they have. Most are doing the best they can, some make excuses. It’s childish to target people based on just a demographic. And if you say it’s not, let me go and kick a black person because of the victim mentality, cultural blocks, and overall ignorance that some of my people still cling to…instead of making it my personal goal to break those stereotypes and live a good life for myself

[_Sam Harris]

That's just wonderful, what an enlightening hobby you have, B&L. You spend time trying to deconstruct innocent people's beliefs based on what church they go to, and then once you've done it, laughing all the while at their discomfort, you come here for praise.

I do not get the idea amongst some here that LDS who you do not know, and who have done nothing to you, deserve to be either physically or psychologically harmed. It's funny when they get beat up (KARMA!), it's funny when their houses are vandalized, it's funny when you seek them out to "give them the truth" by placing information contrary to what they've been taught before them in the most disturbing way possible.

And yet it has been bandied about on this board that I have no integrity.

So far as I understand the situation, 'Boaz and Lydia' is a former LDS who has come to the conclusion that his time in the CoJCoLDS was a highly negative experience all round, as well as being based on falsehood. On that basis he thinks it reasonable to discourage people from joining that organisation.

The CoJCOLDS, in an effort to persuade people to join it, maintains a website with an open invitation to 'chat' with someone described as 'a missionary', whose object may reasonably be supposed to be to persuade people that the teachings of the CoJCoLDS are true. That person is presumably there in a volunteer capacity, and can reasonably be presumed to anticipate that he or she may encounter strong unbelief.

'Boaz and Lydia' can, it seems to me, quite properly accept the invitation to 'chat', and in the course of that chat may reasonably make his best efforts to argue against the position that the missionary advocates.

You refer to his dialog with the missionary as "deconstruct[ing] innocent people's beliefs based on what church they go to". The word 'deconstructing' seems misused here (surely you just mean 'arguiing against'?), and 'innocent' is surely irrelevant too - you speak as if B&L had chosen to hit the missionary with a stick in an unprovoked attack, whereas he is in fact simply accepting the open invitation to chat, and then putting forward evidence that the missionary's position (Joseph Smith did not marry a teenage girl) is false. [You then move into irrelevant stuff about other people delighting in physical attacking LDS persons and property, though this is not what B&L is advocating here.] And as for the stuff about "based on what church they go to" - you would hardly have expected B&L to give the missionary a trenchant refutation of (say) the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, would you? He is talking to an LDS, so he discusses what the CoJCoLDS teaches.

You complain about B&L thinking "it's funny when you seek [LDS] out to "give them the truth" by placing information contrary to what they've been taught before them in the most disturbing way possible". Please recall that he is talking to a missionary who has offered to discuss LDS belief with all comers in the hope of converting them. He is not shouting at people in the street, nor appearing on their doorsteps unannounced to offer his message. Why shoudn't he offer the best counterevidence he can?

And frankly I do find it ludicrous, and indeed laughable, that a missionary for the CoJCoLDS can be so ignorant about the history of Joseph Smith, the prophet of the church for which they are proselytizing, that he or she does not know Joseph Smith married a whole lot of women, some of them teenagers, some of them sisters who were his legal wards, If I recall correctly. Anyone that ignorant in such a role cannot complain if their ignorance is sometimes mocked. While I don't have the same motivations and tastes as B&L, I really don't see anything bad about what he has done here.

I think you on the other hand need to ask yourself why the CoJCoLDS is marketing itself using naïve and ill-prepared kids in this way.

I really wish some exmos on here would really get over what the church did to them and move on. B&L is no benignly going about this, but I realize it tittlates. I understand. Way to get back at the establishment!

Every Mormon you come across is deceptive, right? They know that they're living a lie, or they're insane, so why not target them?

I will say this: I think KA's method of "spreading the truth" was far more effective and tactful than B&L. He goes online, pretends to be someone he's not, puts forth contrary information for the sake of doing so, then laughs when someone gives their "testiphony". That word right there should tell you what his intent is.

I'm so sorry for all the immense pain the LDS church has caused folks posting here. I was in that place, the disgusting black whore. But I moved on, and I will NOT abuse my friends, random LDS, or anyone from that church I meet because of my pain. Those people have the right to live their lives out as they see fit, and I am in no place to try to affect that.

But I lack integrity, so forget all I said.

We all know what B&L's intent is. As I said, his ways are not my ways (like you, I prefer to let other people live their lives as they see fit and I don't try to change that), but I don't have this existential angst over what he's doing as you appear to have.

by the way, I have no clue who you are and have no reason to think you lack integrity. I understand where you're coming from, though I see it differently.

I guess I'm out of the loop on the back story here.

Guy, I've learned that on this board, wisdom is the thought du jour, you are not wise unless you are with the crowd. It's ok to post pictures of garments, call people mentally challenged, and much more, but you cannot point out when someone who is popular that week acts in a hypocticial manner. THAT is a sin.

I just don't understand why people here defend certain actions, simply because it's being done to Mormons, when they know, if it were any other demographic, they'd be all in their sense of social justice. It seems that their individual experiences with PEOPLE in a church, flawed, scared, ignorant people justifies them taking people who they do not know and harassing them.

It was PEOPLE who made me feel the way I did as a Mormon. The culture. I have some problems with LDS inc, but I will not take a whole people and demean them because of what I felt. That is so base.

I just can't see the justification for what B&L is doing. I think he needs to move on with his life now.

[_Dr. Shades]

Firstly, I stand by the word deconstruct. B&L's sole aim is not to "chat", it is to hurt.

I think his intent is to have fun. But in the meantime, he's doing some good, since he's exposing people to facts to which they really need to be exposed in order to make an informed decision on whether to continue sinking time and money into this organization.

The church's aim is to put forth their religious beliefs as they see it. They may be ignorant (some of them, most of them) of the true history behind what they are putting forth. B&L knows that what he is doing could cause someone emotional distress.

When making an omelette, you've gotta break a few eggs.

That which is worthwhile is often difficult. Painful, even. Doesn't mean it's any less worthwhile, though.

Priate, more than one person on here has said that I have no honesty and integrity. And most of them were atheists. To me, integrity is giving others the same respect for their space and beliefs as you want for yourself.

Ignore them. You do have integrity, and no one can take that away from you.

Cheer on, guys. I can't wait for the next article to laugh about where someone got beat up just because they were LDS! Joy joy!

In all fairness, that was Mercury, not Boaz & Lidia. And no one else laughed at that, remember.

I will say this: I think KA's method of "spreading the truth" was far more effective and tactful than B&L. He goes online, pretends to be someone he's not, puts forth contrary information for the sake of doing so, then laughs when someone gives their "testiphony". That word right there should tell you what his intent is.

That might be his intent, but the facts he shares are solid. At the end of the day, that's what counts.

I'm so sorry for all the immense pain the LDS church has caused folks posting here. I was in that place, the disgusting black whore.

??? C'mon, they weren't THAT bad, were they?

But I moved on, and I will NOT abuse my friends, random LDS, or anyone from that church I meet because of my pain. Those people have the right to live their lives out as they see fit, and I am in no place to try to affect that.

But those people aren't purposefully putting themselves into the arena of public opinion. The missionaries have expressly signed up for "the game." They aren't innocent bystanders, as Chap pointed out.

But I lack integrity, so forget all I said.

No, you don't lack integrity. You've more than demonstrated your integrity many times over. Please let that one go.

[_Sam Harris]

Shades, I'm not sure I read you clearly, but my experiences WERE that bad. I wished three things as a Mormon, to be white, virgin, and born in the church. I'm not alone in that, either. But I moved away from that bitterness. I have black female LDS friends, and I have chosen the high road of supporting them in their life choices instead of trying to tear them down. One is about to get married in September, she lives out in Utah. Her mother moved there when she was a child, and her then bishop gave a blessing, because he knew how difficult it would be for my friend and her mother. And it has been, but my friend also feels very blessed where she is. She is the only African American BIC Mormon I know. I respect her too much to take my opinion of "truth" and thrust it at her. It's immature!

And also, as far as my integrity, until the statement by those who made it is recanted, I'll always be outraged. When I leave here there will be people to say that I was good to them and helped them. I make a point of doing so, even to those who may have hurt me. It's who I am. I don't appreciate anyone messing with that based on an internet exchange. They will get all my fury over such a thing.

B&L is having cruel fun at someone else's expense. I at this point consider him and Merc to be two different facets of the same paste jewel. Both of them take a sick delight in the pain and struggles of LDS whom they do not know...probably because they can't bring themselves to make peace with the fact that there are Mormons that they do know who will never go where these two individuals want them to go.

In my heart and mind there is no justification for singling people out just because of their religion. You can disagree with a concept without making other human beings pay for it.

[Guest]

Shades, I'm not sure I read you clearly, but my experiences WERE that bad. I wished three things as a Mormon, to be white, virgin, and born in the church. I'm not alone in that, either. But I moved away from that bitterness. I have black female LDS friends, and I have chosen the high road of supporting them in their life choices instead of trying to tear them down. One is about to get married in September, she lives out in Utah. Her mother moved there when she was a child, and her then bishop gave a blessing, because he knew how difficult it would be for my friend and her mother. And it has been, but my friend also feels very blessed where she is. She is the only African American BIC Mormon I know. I respect her too much to take my opinion of "truth" and thrust it at her. It's immature!

And also, as far as my integrity, until the statement by those who made it is recanted, I'll always be outraged. When I leave here there will be people to say that I was good to them and helped them. I make a point of doing so, even to those who may have hurt me. It's who I am. I don't appreciate anyone messing with that based on an internet exchange. They will get all my fury over such a thing.

B&L is having cruel fun at someone else's expense. I at this point consider him and Merc to be two different facets of the same paste jewel. Both of them take a sick delight in the pain and struggles of LDS whom they do not know...probably because they can't bring themselves to make peace with the fact that there are Mormons that they do know who will never go where these two individuals want them to go.

In my heart and mind there is no justification for singling people out just because of their religion. You can disagree with a concept without making other human beings pay for it.

Your terrible personal history, of which I knew nothing, is clearly a significant element to be taken into account in understanding your attititude to the subject we are discussing. And when I meet naïve religious believers who are obviously in dire need of some kind of comfort (however illusory) to deal with horrible lives, I do not attempt to undermine their beliefs. [EDIT TO ADD: I do not of course include you in this description.]

But a missionary who offers public discussion of his or her church with the aim of converting people to its beliefs? Very different.

I am trying to understand you. Please try to understand people like me (and guy sajer, if I may presume to use his name in this way). Answering this question may help:

"Under what circumstances is it morally permissible to seek effectively to confute, by argument and evidence, the claims of those who publicly advocate a religious position, and who are put forward by their church to advocate that position to all comers?"

It must surely be permissible sometimes. But when, in your view?

[_Dr. Shades]

Shades, I'm not sure I read you clearly, but my experiences WERE that bad. I wished three things as a Mormon, to be white, virgin, and born in the church. I'm not alone in that, either.

THAT is tragic. On paper, the church teaches that those things don't matter. That some individuals--or maybe the entire church culture--didn't "get the memo" is despicable.

But I moved away from that bitterness. I have black female LDS friends, and I have chosen the high road of supporting them in their life choices instead of trying to tear them down. . . I respect her too much to take my opinion of "truth" and thrust it at her. It's immature!

I AGREE WITH YOU. I think you're taking a very reasoned approach with her. However, this friend is NOT a missionary. She did NOT voluntarily sign up to discuss her religion with outsiders. Therefore, she has diplomatic immunity since she's not in the arena itself.

Had Boaz & Lidia struck up such a conversation with HER, then everything you wrote would apply. In this case, though, I don't think it does, for the above reasons.

And also, as far as my integrity, until the statement by those who made it is recanted, I'll always be outraged.

As well you should be, but keep in mind that such people are, I'm quite confident, in the extreme minority.

B&L is having cruel fun at someone else's expense. I at this point consider him and Merc to be two different facets of the same paste jewel. Both of them take a sick delight in the pain and struggles of LDS whom they do not know...

There's no way of knowing that the missionary in B&L's story is undergoing any "pain and struggles" at all. She bore her testimony, didn't she?

In my heart and mind there is no justification for singling people out just because of their religion. You can disagree with a concept without making other human beings pay for it.

She singled herself out by signing up to play the game. And there's no way of knowing whether she's "paying" for anything, since apparently her testimony is still intact.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

I don't think this on-line missionary suffered too terribly. In fact, the persecution she experienced at the hands of the wicked anti-mormon probably makes her feel even more righteous. Dodging the fiery darts of the adversary, casting your pearls before swine, surviving the refiners fire, enduring to the end, and being a peculiar person are all part of the Mormon experience. She will have a wonderful faith promoting testimony to share with all her friends about the day she was "attacked" by a rabid anti-mormon, yet she remained calm and bore her testimony, and she knows with every fiber of her being that the church is true, and no faith-destroying facts can take that away from her.

[_Boaz & Lidia]

She asked me if I had a question.

I did.

I asked.

She denied.

I replied.

She cried.

I sighed.

I hope her testimonkey died.

Thank you LDS Inc for providing me with fresh meat!

NEXT!

[_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.)