The Dude mocked and got the boot

Post by **_beastie** » Sat May 10, 2008 2:13 pm

The Dude recently mentioned that he lost his MAD posting privileges, so I went to check out what happened. Here it is, including the background:

A poster named Investigator said:

It does matter, because if Joseph Smith abused polygamy, that puts his entire prophethood at stake.

MormonMason replied:

No, it doesn't--not any more than it does David the prophet (Acts 2:29-30) for committing adultery and then having the husband killed in battle to cover up the pregnancy (2 Samuel 11:2-27). It does not change the fact that Solomon was given of the prophetic Spirit and saw the Lord twice, receiving his wisdom for his own, and then turned from the Lord, married wives that were forbidden, and then worshipped their gods (1 Kings 10:23-24; 11:1-10).

What they wrote was the truth and was revealed from on high--in spite of themselves and their wicked deeds. If Joseph deliberately abused a principle of the Gospel (it remains to be seen whether he indeed did deliberately abuse such a principle), he will have to answer for it and we will have to answer for our sin in rejecting God and his Gospel just because His servants were "men of like passions as we" (Acts 14:15; James 5:17-18). It will not be an excuse in the day of the Lord.

As it was with them, so shall it be with the Prophet Joseph Smith. Of this I so testify in the name of Jesus Christ.

Mars replied:

Thank you so much for posting that, O lodge brother of mine. smile.gif I really wanted to post a response to The Dude's posts but you did instead, essentially saying what I had thought.

The Dude responded:

I didn't take it as a response to me. If it was, it was misguided, because I totally understand the logic behind what you are saying. Joseph Smith could have done literally anything and you would still believe, and so would I have, at one time. Adolf Hitler could have been the founder of your religion if God had chosen him, and with your burning testimony, you wouldn't even blink.

Am I right?

Tal Bachman has been mocked for saying he would have strapped a bomb to his chest if his stake president had asked for it. Would you?

Would you?

No reason or requirement is too stupid if you have a golden testimony.

I know it sounds like mockery, but the logic is iron-clad.

Ok so it is iron-clad mockery. Take a break. ~ Mods

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 1208421432

First, let me say these TBMs who are insisting that no bad behavior on the part of prophets matter are full of bunk, by their own scriptures, which state:

36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.
37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.
38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.
39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.
40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.

D&C 121
(by the way, I bolded the phrase that I believe is true, and was insightful of Joseph Smith)

This is a perfect demonstration of something that had coincidentally been on my mind, anyway.

One thing that almost all believers do is to insist that religious beliefs ought to be respected, no matter what. You ought not to mock religious beliefs. This was a pet peeve of ZLMB believers. They used to phrase it in coy ways, like "positive beliefs" inherently required respect while "negative beliefs" did not, a painfully ridiculous proposition. But this isn't just limited to Mormonism - almost all religions seem to insist that their beliefs ought not to be mocked.

I strongly disagree with this proposition. Some beliefs are so ridiculous and/or dangerous that they ought to be exposed and mocked. I see no reason to exclude religious beliefs from this proposition.

Perhaps if we didn't live in a society that jointly agrees to coddle people by "respecting" their ridiculous beliefs, then we wouldn't live in a society so riddled with ridiculous beliefs. Perhaps if people were forced to defend their ridiculous beliefs against mockery, more people would recognize how fundamentally ridiculous some beliefs are.

Post by **_The Dude** » Sat May 10, 2008 3:05 pm

I don't think it was so much what I said... maybe... but there was also this reaction:

cdowis wrote:I have reported your post to the moderator. It is insulting to me and my religious beliefs, and a mockery of the meaning of a testimony.

You have crossed the line, Sir. You cannot hide behind a bitter enemy of the church to excuse such a comment.

Frankly if you comment is allowed to stand, I will be forced to leave this forum to you and others who would make such comments against my religious beliefs.

I guess the board wasn't big enough for the both of us.

Post by **_beastie** » Sat May 10, 2008 3:09 pm

Oh, brother. Charles... how shall I say this... Charles is imbued with a high sense of self-importance... and it is almost always unjustified. Perhaps this is the sole case when his high sense of self-importance is justified, because it's been well established that MAD mods cater to believers, and do their best to make the board comfortable for them.

Post by **_karl61** » Sat May 10, 2008 3:18 pm

Lucky us because we will get more of his posts now! He sends lightning bolts through peoples thoughts/posts; again, lucky us.

Post by **_Ren** » Sat May 10, 2008 3:27 pm

...so it's A-OK to delve into links between Darwinism and Hitler / moral ambiguity... (which I noticed quite a bit of recently on MADB).
But it's not OK to delve into links between religious indoctrination and moral ambiguity...?

Hmmm. Yeah. Figures.

Is it a temp-ban? Or are you off for good?

Post by **_The Dude** » Sat May 10, 2008 3:45 pm

Yea Renegade, it's all fun and games until someone gets his feelings hurt. (cdowis didn't say much in the Darwin-Hitler, Ben Stein affairs, though.)

I don't know if it's temporary or permanent. Probably temporary.

Post by **_Nightingale** » Sat May 10, 2008 3:49 pm

I don't even see it as mockery. It comes across to me as just a straightforward statement. I think it's more likely "offensive" for mentioning that "bitter enemy of the church", Tal B. I see that Dude also mentioned Hitler. That does get a thread automatically shut down. I think maybe it's a case of Suspension for Tone - or something???

Re the "suicide bomber" concept that is apparently so egregiously offensive to Mormons. I realize that is a loaded phrase these days, and although I'm on record as saying I wouldn't choose to use it in this context, I honestly do see it as just Tal's way of expressing how he felt. I don't see it as such a deadly insult as the Net Mos are taking it. I haven't read that he said ALL of the mishies felt the same. He was saying HE felt that way. (It's a long way from expressing the depth of your belief by using a hot phrase that people object to and actually carrying out any activity remotely akin to it though). In the interview he gave, to which, again, some Mormons strongly reacted, I heard him say that *I* would have..., NOT that the Mormon Church teaches us this (in those words) or that it is a requirement for all missionaries to feel like this or do it. In that way, I am somewhat puzzled at the very strong reaction and feelings against Tal for that. Then I get a bit worried about myself because I don't feel horror about it. I mean, I have known people who are that zealous, in principle. I have been in religious groups that, like Mormons, expect you to follow and obey. It is just a matter of degree. To me, it is just a person expressing they way they interpret and carry out the admonitions to be faithful, obedient, totally involved, completely devoted and to follow their designated leader's instructions.

I know it's a long way from the bishop telling you to shape up and the MP (theoretically) ordering you to carry out violence but hey, it has happened in the past, even in Mormonism, and the "belief system" is in place (theoretically) for it to occur again. The principle is the same. Obey your leaders. Devote yourself completely. Give up everything for the Kingdom. It's just a matter of interpretation what that means to people. I knew a lot of the missionaries in my area. I personally saw them choose "obedience" to church leaders over rationality on several occasions.

Examples:

1. A missionary was very ill and my MD to whom I took her was considering hospitalizing her. The MP said she was fine and should keep working and her comp said if she just had more faith she wouldn't be sick. Mish chose to keep working. Didn't die. So I guess MP was inspired - or something. Full disclosure: MP let her stay in mission home for a few days first.

2. Ward mission leader told members not to feed mishies without investigators. Dinners fell off. Mishies got hungry. Really hungry. Obeyed instructions rather than eat, for days at a time. Not healthy.

3. Mishie mom gravely ill. Mish not allowed to phone home. Mish obeyed.

4. Mish being abused by comp. (I was eye witness). We appealed to MP to move mish (or preferably send the other one home as she was known to be abusive to all her comps). MP said there was no problem. Next transfer: Did NOT move abused mish. She had to endure another month of it. She did. Because the alternatives - making a fuss, not being obedient, going home early, were worse to her than being physically and emotionally abused on a constant basis, every day. (This comp wouldn't even let her have P-Day. "The work is too important." So while the other mishies were out playing and relaxing for their piddly few hours off, this particular companionship, dressed in mo-mish mode, even on P-Day, was going on "teaching appointments". That is a degree of artificial zealousness that frankly scares me. I know it doesn't sound like much and that maybe some would even admire it but there's belief, devotion, obedience that can still be somewhat understandable and even rational in light of the beliefs, but when you move along to "zeal" on the scale, excessive zeal starts to move away from rational thinking in a scary way to me.

I know these examples are relatively minor on the scale compared to a "suicide bomber" mindset but the point is: It's a similar way of thinking. Obey without question. Obey whether it's rational or not. Obey to your own and/or someone else's detriment. The only life that matters is the after-life. Etc. It scares me when people are scared to say 'no'.

So, in light of all that, I don't see that Tal's or Dude's comments are outrageously inaccurate. I can see that they do take things to the nth degree and the expression thereof is bound to be offensive to people who think they would, of course, obey their leaders as expected, but at some point along the line would stop if things started getting too extreme. The point is, to what point would you obey? What kind of thing would cause you to stop being obedient? What would you do then?

As for posting at MA&D, I'd likely avoid the Tal-bomber topic. I think they are in such a frenzy over that that it is impossible at this point to discuss it or reason with them about it. I tried it before, saying that it came across to me as a way of Tal expressing how deep his devotion was, and I got quite chewed out over that. Many there have taken it personally and are offended, it would seem. It is not a subject to introduce if you want to actually get anywhere. If anybody could, it would be the Dude but uh, nope. Not even him, it would seem. Especially not when he mentions Hitler as well. If you want to post there you have to step around the sensitivities. I guess sometimes non-mo posters just get tired of that? But then there is a price to pay!

Post by **_EAllusion** » Sat May 10, 2008 3:53 pm

Yet, somehow, defending a genuinely offensive and crank work of historical argument like Weikart's "From Darwin to Hitler" as Daniel C. Peterson enthusiastically does, is perfectly Ok.

Post by **_Gadianton** » Sat May 10, 2008 3:55 pm

The Internet Mormons should be far more offended by what MM said:

No, it doesn't (matter if Joseph Smith abused polygamy)--not any more than it does David the prophet

Parenthesis added. Hell, The Dude's argument was mild. Because there should be no disagreement whatsoever that if the prophet asked you to strap up a bomb and walk into a mall then you'd do it, even if you think the likelyhood of ever being commanded to do so is very low. If God called Hitler as a prophet, would anyone disagree? Who are you to question the Lord? But what MM argued for is something far more sinister and I can't believe Cdowis in good conscience can remain on the board so long as MormonMason is present. In fact, I take Cdowis's actions in this matter as a clear sustaining of MM's belief that not only is it a moral imperative to kill if God so commands it, but it is ok to abuse the privilage of killing!

If God wasn't already monsterous enough to begin with, now, according to MM and implicitly according to Cdowis and all those who agree with The Dude being banned rather than MormonMason, if God called Hitler to be a prophet and had do some cruel deeds, that would bo OK because God's plan operates on a higher level than we can fathom, but it would also be OK if said prophet Hitler got a whiff of the blood and went crazy, and took the killing and torture to the next level without God's permission! Not only would it be OK, but the rest of us would be wrong to even question it! In fact, we'd be censured as the Dude was here!

MormonMason has eviscerated God's supreme fail-safe mechanism, that if a prophet were ever to go contrary to God's instruction that God would kill him. And all the Mormons on FAIR/MAD agree. This is a new low in the moral corrosion of apologetics.

Post by **_William Schryver** » Sat May 10, 2008 3:56 pm

The Dude wrote:Yea Renegade, it's all fun and games until someone gets his feelings hurt. (cdowis didn't say much in the Darwin-Hitler, Ben Stein affairs, though.)

I don't know if it's temporary or permanent. Probably temporary.

Just be glad they didn't cut off one of your toes.

I hear those little buggers are quite essential for good balance -- which as you know can be very important after a long night of bowling.