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

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Sam Harris
_Emeritus
Posts: 2261
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:35 am

Post by _Sam Harris »

mms wrote:
Sam Harris wrote:
mms wrote: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. (And you have painted me into a corner to fit your argument) 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.


Once again, that one person is not the church. If the exmo rebels on here really truly wanted change, and were strong enough to do something about it, you'd get to writing and approach those who clearly wanted answers....instead of targeting innocent people.

Of course we keep focusing on how bad the church is, and how that person might not have been hurt, and how hurt many here were, and how justified their actions are.

This isn't about the exchange of truth or dialogue. It's about setting out to hurt another based on one's bad experiences.
Each one has to find his peace from within. And peace to be real must be unaffected by outside circumstances. -Ghandi
_Sam Harris
_Emeritus
Posts: 2261
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:35 am

Post by _Sam Harris »

It's amazing the lengths people will go to in order to justify their actions.

If this was done to any other demographic, it would be outlandish. But because it's a Mormon *gasp* it's ok.

I tell you, if I could find the words for how watching supposedly intelligent rational beings behave on this board makes me feel. It's kind of funny.

Every Mormon who wishes to leave the church, be they born in church or exmo has choices to make. You can move on towards peace or you can dwell.

It's ok for exmos here to make assumptions about Mormon thought, but let someone examine the motives of an exmo, let's throw that out the window.

It's ok for anyone to do something terrible to a Mormon, but let that same thing be done to an exmo, oh my gosh let's call out the guard.

There are some flat out blatant hypocrites on this thread. You do unto all people as you would have done unto you, regardless of religion, lack thereof, or any other demographic.

It's just plain wrong to say it's ok to treat a certain group a certain way based on your personal experiences. And that is exactly WHY I applied it to black people and the legitimate problems within my community. Doing the same thing there is IRRATIONAL. But doing it to Mormons is ok.

Double standards. Hypocrisy.

I didn't join the church knowing the "full truth" (so stuff it, PP) any more than any of you did. I just knew how to let go once I realized that the church was not for me, and I couldn't change the establishment.

Talking to a truly questioning LDS and giving them counsel is not the same as seeking out people who do not want your information. You have no right to infringe upon them. Who are you (figuratively) to walk up to a person and tell them their whole worldview is wrong? How do you know that yours is not? You're (speaking figuratively again) just going according to one standard of measurement. Mormon versus exmormon.

It's not enough.
Each one has to find his peace from within. And peace to be real must be unaffected by outside circumstances. -Ghandi
_Sam Harris
_Emeritus
Posts: 2261
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:35 am

Post by _Sam Harris »

Boaz & Lidia wrote:
RenegadeOfPhunk wrote: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!


And they know they're lying as they say this, don't they?

You can look up viable therapy options by your county and state, PP.
Each one has to find his peace from within. And peace to be real must be unaffected by outside circumstances. -Ghandi
_Ren
_Emeritus
Posts: 1387
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 11:34 am

Post by _Ren »

Hey Dude :) Been a while... :)

The Dude wrote: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'm not sure my approval or disapproval is based on anything particularly rational. I just know I prefer the 'good cop' routine to the 'bad cop' routine. I guess - usually.
That said, I know both ways can 'work' - takes different kinds. I just tend to look more favorably on people who are sensitive to the fact that - more often than not - the beliefs in question aren't just some intellectual curiosity to the people who hold them...

I mean, even if your objective is to coldly and deliberately try and 'break down' somebodies belief, I think it makes sense to realise this, and act accordingly.

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.

I pretty much feel the same way - to a large extent.
However, I'd say that the 'tread lightly'-ers had more of a sway on me than the 'You-believe-THAT?!'-ers. I don't think I'm just thinking that way because it seems better. I'm pretty sure that's genuinely true.

...although - again - maybe that's just cos of the way I am. Different people will react differently I guess.


If I focus on B&L's real actions, I don't find anything to fault.

I'm not sure I 'fault' it as such. Maybe it's more that I'm not particularly impressed. Donno - not sure.

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.

Are you saying that the action itself could be disapproved of, but it would depend on the motivation?
Well, that's pretty much what I said - right? :)

I mean, how else am I to interperet this:
Oh it was great fun!
Last edited by Guest on Wed May 07, 2008 7:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_Ren
_Emeritus
Posts: 1387
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 11:34 am

Post by _Ren »

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

...and some missionaries seem to take more pride / pleasure in just making it clear how inferior other world-views are. Or how much superior the Mormon world-view is.

...other Mormon missionaries don't. So much...

But either way - I will agree on this: As long as missionaries are out pushing a point of view, 'we' can be out pushing 'ours'.
I'm more talking about 'tone' here...
_Sam Harris
_Emeritus
Posts: 2261
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:35 am

Post by _Sam Harris »

Ren, tone is everything.

KA's information that she puts forth is far better than this crap PP is doing.
Each one has to find his peace from within. And peace to be real must be unaffected by outside circumstances. -Ghandi
_Ren
_Emeritus
Posts: 1387
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 11:34 am

Post by _Ren »

Sam Harris wrote:Ren, tone is everything.
KA's information that she puts forth is far better than this crap PP is doing

I'm guessing it's quite a bit more effective too.

I don't think church leaders are particularly worried about those who 'trounce' on missionaries for fun.
Now - those who simply present facts in the friendliest, most objective way possible? I'd wager their a little bit more worried about them...
_Boaz & Lidia
_Emeritus
Posts: 1416
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:31 am

Post by _Boaz & Lidia »

I believe my home has been blacklisted as I have not had any visits from Mormon missionaries for over two and a half years.

So if LDS Inc does not want me speaking with their fragile kids then they need only block my IP address, just like fairboards did for a while.

Until then if the mood strikes me I will continue to educate these poor saps. And I will enjoy it.
_Ren
_Emeritus
Posts: 1387
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 11:34 am

Post by _Ren »

Boaz & Lidia wrote:So if LDS Inc does not want me speaking with their fragile kids then they need only block my IP address, just like fairboards did for a while.

...it's a good point actually. You'd have thought they'd end up doing this sometimes...
_Mercury
_Emeritus
Posts: 5545
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 2:14 pm

Post by _Mercury »

RenegadeOfPhunk wrote:
Boaz & Lidia wrote:So if LDS Inc does not want me speaking with their fragile kids then they need only block my IP address, just like fairboards did for a while.

...it's a good point actually. You'd have thought they'd end up doing this sometimes...


There is always TOR:

http://www.torproject.org/
And crawling on the planet's face
Some insects called the human race
Lost in time
And lost in space...and meaning
Post Reply