RfM--why it's a useless site. (Simon will love this!)

[_asbestosman]

Candidly, I think "worthless" is hyperbole. I just think that ranting isn't a very good idea. Which is odd, because when I look back on this thread, I think I'm coming across as really mean. I need something fun to talk about. Beastie's probably right about balancing that site out with reading about the great good humans also do. I just hope I don't end up filtering that out too, hah!

[_why me]

Armenians aren't Mormons. I'd also like to point out that the Armenians actively took part in rebellion against the Turks in Eastern Anatolia when the Russians invaded during WWI. Never mind that no one mentions the millions of Muslims killed in the thirty or so years before WWI by Christians in the Balkans, Asia Minor, and the Caucasus region that Armenians went along with. Some would call the killings of Armenians during World War I the final blow in a larger civil war and ethnic conflict between Muslims and Christians between 1820-1920. Personally I think no one was entirely innocent in the episode (except for the women and children caught in the "slaughters of men").

.

Hate is hate. It breeds violence. That is why I challenged abestosman that I used godwin's law when I made the comparison with a hate site against jews.

And that was my point with RFM. Is it a hate site or is it just people venting?

[_why me]

And certainly if the Mormons were exterminated during the early days as some would have hoped, it would have also been genocide. Such is hatred when fanned by more hatred.

According to D&C 101, it was God who sent these trials and afflictions:

1 Verily I say unto you, concerning your brethren who have been afflicted, and persecuted, and cast out from the land of their inheritance—

And the catholics and protestants used the Bible against the jews for denying Christ. The point ray is: is rfm a hate site or just people venting? When I read RFM in the old days I thought that it was a hate site. The same for Postmo. Now I do think that postmo is much better than rfm. But if they do not allow free discussion from people with opposing views about the LDS church, they become upside down taliban TBMs.

[_RayAgostini]

The point ray is: is rfm a hate site or just people venting?

I think it's a combination of many things and many people at various stages, and it would be oversimplifying to characterise it as one thing or another. Some people feel hate, because of what they've experienced in the Church, but that doesn't mean they are "haters". It doesn't mean they aren't good people. You can't lump them all into one category.

I know Australian WW2 veterans who still hate the Japanese because of what they did to Australian POWs, and I know veterans who have completely forgiven them (as a people, which doesn't happen overnight). I think we should bear in mind that this is more of a human phenomenon than necessarily a "religious one", but in this case it just happens to be religion. People do not like to be deprived of liberty, and that includes mental liberty, and many subsequently feel this is what the Church has done to them. One should try to walk in the shoes of another before casting judgment, and that's not always easy.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I think the problem lies in the way you're defining "venting," ABman. (Or rather, the way that it's handled in the blog post you linked to.) The "venting" described in the article involves hitting a punching bag, which is a lot different that communicating with people on a site like RfM. Also, I thought the blog author was discussing "catharsis" in a very bizarre way. Aristotle says that catharsis is the product of experiencing dramatic tragedy, and that the resultant emotion is supposed to be a combination of pity and fear. Do you see a lot of "pity and fear" on RfM? I would say, "Yeah, you do." It seems, though, that the blog post author is viewing "catharsis" as a venting of angry rage, though, and that's not quite what Aristotle had in mind, in my opinion.

[_angsty]

By OP logic, we should also avoid therapy because all it does is drive us to anger and rage.

I participate on RfM regularly and think it's a fantastic outlet that serves an important role for people who are transitioning out of Mormonism. I've found it to be a lively, friendly forum of mostly cool people. And, Susan, the primary moderator, is a gem.

My guess is that those who have a negative judgment of the forum might be missing the point of it or just haven't had the kind of experiences that would allow them to see the value of it. The posters over there have been excluded from weddings because they are not "worthy". Many Mormons don't even think it's offensive to exclude a parent or sibling from a wedding in this way. The posters over there have had to establish new personal boundaries with intrusive family and friends. Many Mormons are completely unaware of the ways in which they pressure disaffected members and apostates and they aren't reflective enough to realize all the offensive things they say. Some of the posters there have been rejected by children and spouse because of their unbelief. Some of them are trying to navigate a relationship with a believing spouse or children and have no other outlet where they can say what they really think. Posters there have had to deal with exorcising vestiges of "Mormon think" from their emotional lives. Some of them don't know anyone else in their non-internet lives who can relate to the experiences they are having.

If most of your experience with Mormonism has been positive, you're probably not going to relate to the frustrations of the posters there. If you are a believing Mormon, firmly entrenched in church culture, you will probably feel attacked and not even understand the grievances aired there. That's fine. RfM is not for you.

RfM is not about debating the merits of Mormonism, or scholarship. It is not the exmo version of apologetic forums. It's a support network of people in various stages of navigating out of Mormonism and dealing with the fallout. I am tremendously grateful for the support I've gotten there. It was such a relief to interact with people who had been dealing with the same issues I had been dealing with. It was also a relief to be able to say freely what I was feeling and thinking and be understood without offending anyone or being criticized for having the feelings and thoughts I do.

And for those who think that Steve Benson is worshiped over there, not so. His posts get debated, deleted, and completely ignored all the time. He's a great contributor there-- puts a lot of effort into his posts. But he also has his critics on the board-- and they're not shy. I also think he has every right to talk about his grandfather-- it's not as if ETB's views on race and politics are undocumented. If I complained about my grandfather's racism, no one here would even take notice. Why should Steve be under some special constraint because other people think his grandfather was a prophet?

[_asbestosman]

By OP logic, we should also avoid therapy because all it does is drive us to anger and rage.

As I recall, the article more or less states outright that therapy sessions consisting of venting are a bad idea. Also, as I recall, I did state that I have my own frustrations with the church and to some extent can understand why other may have some deeper than me. However, I am seriously reconsidering the value of venting.

The community and sense of support is undoubtedly useful to some extent. So yes, I think my term of "useless" is hyperbole. However, it did catch attention and spark discussion so I don't think it was a bad choice. The main reason I used the word useless is that I often hear people say they need a place to vent their frustrations. I no longer believe that to be true. What we probably do need is a group which one can be a part of and share one's thoughts with--perhaps even a protected place to meet with the group. RfM could work well for such a purpose.

I also believe that RfM poses a danger to the individual participants. I believe the site makes it more difficult to integrate with the out-group--other Mormons by solidifying the boundary between in and out groups. RfM often paints Mormons as stupid or dishonest. This is probably a bad idea if one is trying to keep the peace in a home with a believing spouse or with believing loved ones. Now certainly the church itself also solidifies in and out groups when it speaks about the evils of apostasy and apostates. The point isn't to say one side or the other is worse. The point is to be aware.

I don't recommend that anyone be a push-over always deferring to one's opponents. Rather I think it wise to try stepping back and seeing the consequences of one's actions. We're not as smart as we think we are nor as in control of our reactions as we hope. Fallible as our brains are, we are lucky to have the ability to step back and try to see the big picture. It's hard because our intuitions, emotions, and so on lure us into thinking we see things clearly when we do not.

[_LDS truthseeker]

I regulary go to RFM, Postmormon and this site. My thoughts:

RFM: Biggest claim to fame is that it is the only critical site that consistantly shows up on the first page of a google search on the word 'Mormon'. It's been that way for a long time and may never change. So naturally it's often the first stopping point for questioning members. It is also a large group of people.

Like any message board, you have to pick and choose your threads. I probably only read about 5-10% of threads from any board. I detest the 'what are you drinking?' threads as that turns off members. There's a lot of negativity there but there's also a lot of gems there and I learned a lot from my years there.

They do have some good stuff over there. For example it's the only board (that I know of) that Richard Packham frequents. He is one of the most knowledgeable critics of the church and I enjoy reading his responses.

POSTMORMON.ORG: A little more personal and smaller group. Like his board, people have avatars and takes up more space. People often seem to move from RFM to Postmo or Mormon Discussions.


A general comment: Boards seem to change personalities every 6 months or so just by having new people come in and old ones drop off.

[_asbestosman]

Hate is hate. It breeds violence. That is why I challenged abestosman that I used godwin's law when I made the comparison with a hate site against jews.

Godwin's law isn't about whether the comparison is valid or not. However, the reason it's a hot topic is that the comparisons become so overused as to cheapen not only the true horror of the Nazis, but also cheapens any point you may have actually had by distracting people into a discussion about Godwin's law. Most people simply ignore you at that point. A skilled writer will try to make the point without talking about Nazis or mass murderers. Bringing up Hitler is, sorry to say, intellectually lazy even when the comparison is otherwise relevant.

Just my $.02

[_asbestosman]

I think the problem lies in the way you're defining "venting," ABman. (Or rather, the way that it's handled in the blog post you linked to.) The "venting" described in the article involves hitting a punching bag, which is a lot different that communicating with people on a site like RfM. Also, I thought the blog author was discussing "catharsis" in a very bizarre way. Aristotle says that catharsis is the product of experiencing dramatic tragedy, and that the resultant emotion is supposed to be a combination of pity and fear. Do you see a lot of "pity and fear" on RfM? I would say, "Yeah, you do." It seems, though, that the blog post author is viewing "catharsis" as a venting of angry rage, though, and that's not quite what Aristotle had in mind, in my opinion.

You may be right Scratch. However, I would like to know what venting angry rage amounts to in the realm of words only which differs from "pity and fear".

I do think the physical violence associated with punching a bad may be different than spoken words. So perhaps a different study should be done? My own guess is that the sort of thing that often goes on at RfM is a two-edged sword. It proves one a sort of sympathetic network which is good, but also increases the dissatisfaction one has with Mormonism and Mormons--something which may cost more than it is worth.