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

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

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

Post by _Themis »

Buffalo wrote:
Technically, Joseph wasn't a pedophile. He was a hebephile and an ephebophile.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia


I would say no to hebephile and yes to ephebophile. The problem over at RFM is that to many would go after me for that opinion.
42
_Dan Vogel
_Emeritus
Posts: 876
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:26 am

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

Post by _Dan Vogel »

Marg,

Obviously that's how you perceive it Dan. I didn't perceive it that way. I perceived it that they disagreed with your argument.


Their behavior went far beyond disagreeing with my arguments. They were intolerant of anyone who had a different interpretation than theirs.

Dan if you disagreed with those who objected to your assumption that Smith was sincere and motivated by true belief that he was connected to God..does that mean you "sneered" at those you disagreed with? My recall is that there were some highly knowledgeable what I consider high level exmormons in the Net community in that discussion. It wasn't a bunch of mindless angry exmormons taking pot shots at you personally for the sake of it. Good arguments were presented.


I didn’t use the term “sneer” as a synonym for disagree or argue. I used it to describe an attitude that was expressed towards me that was hostile. I wasn’t hostile. I was generally engaged in trying to have a civil conversation. I did have a few interesting debates, but Benson, Cabbie, and others were constantly trying to disrupt conversation.

Craig Criddle offered to discuss with you and you didn't take him up on it.


As I recall, Criddle wanted to discuss Spalding and I wasn’t interested.

You do lean towards Mormon apologetics, ..you accept the Book of Mormon translations witnesses as being honest sincere witnesses. You accept Smith as being honest and sincere. The main difference between you and a Mormon apologist is that you say you don't think a God was involved.


No, Marg. I’m just more balanced and moderate in my approach to Joseph Smith and early Mormons. Without your conspiracy theory, you would probably be less dogmatic and extreme. It would also help if you knew Mormon sources and historical methodology better. You and some of the RFMers that I ran into are the other side of the apologetic coin. The Mormon apologists accept uncritically Mormon sources while rejecting anything that comes from an “anti-Mormon”, you do the opposite.

Dan you are not in the middle between LDS and RFMers. You accept pretty much everything LDS..minus God..though in your argument it's hard to tell that you take God out of the equation. You even argue to justify Smith's polygamy.


I’m not trying to be the middle of anything. I’m making my own way. I’m trying to make sense of all the data.

But you and the RFMers are so polarized that you can’t even rightly judge my position. The prime example of this is the statement above. Your assertion that the only difference in my position and the apologists’ is mine doesn’t have God as an explanation is ridiculous. It makes no sense. You seem to imply that they only way to not be an apologists is to disagree with them at every turn.

Given your position Dan, it's no surprise your arguments on there would not be allowed to stand unquestioned, and unquestioned vehemently..because of your influential position in the Mormon community.


Whatever influence I have in the Mormon community (which is nearly none existent) was only increased by such extremist attacks I received at RFM.
I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not.
Joseph Smith (History of the Church 5:401)
_Dan Vogel
_Emeritus
Posts: 876
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:26 am

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

Post by _Dan Vogel »

Themis wrote:
Buffalo wrote:
Technically, Joseph wasn't a pedophile. He was a hebephile and an ephebophile.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia


I would say no to hebephile and yes to ephebophile. The problem over at RFM is that to many would go after me for that opinion.


Where do you find a preference for either term? The ages of his wives span 14-50s. I think he liked women period.
I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not.
Joseph Smith (History of the Church 5:401)
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

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

Post by _beastie »

Marg doesn't listen to reason regarding how Vogel and others are treated on RFM. By her own admission, she didn't even follow the entire Vogel thread, and didn't see the worst of it. I personally was told I was the product of incest and stupid for being willing to consider the pious fraud theory.

Dan:
But you and the RFMers are so polarized that you can’t even rightly judge my position. The prime example of this is the statement above. Your assertion that the only difference in my position and the apologists’ is mine doesn’t have God as an explanation is ridiculous. It makes no sense. You seem to imply that they only way to not be an apologists is to disagree with them at every turn.


I know there are some open minded people at RFM, but, at least at that time period, they tended to be cowed by Benson and Cabbie, who seemed to roam the board as "enforcers" of the "ONE TRUE" exmormon worldview.

I have never, and will never, understood the reception Dan received at RFM. It really seemed like the term "Pious" set them off, like it was some sort of absolution of Smith.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_DarkHelmet
_Emeritus
Posts: 5422
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 11:38 pm

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

Post by _DarkHelmet »

Dan, I've not read your theory, and I watched the thread with you and Benson from a few years ago as an uninformed third party. All I really remember was Benson started attacking you for no real reason and wouldn't let up even when you stopped participating. When a thread ended, he started a new one. One definition of a nut case is a person who won't change his mind and won't change the subject. I lost any respect I had for him after that and haven't visited RFM since. Has he gotten any better?
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die."
- Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

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

Post by _beastie »

DarkHelmet wrote:Dan, I've not read your theory, and I watched the thread with you and Benson from a few years ago as an uninformed third party. All I really remember was Benson started attacking you for no real reason and wouldn't let up even when you stopped participating. When a thread ended, he started a new one. One definition of a nut case is a person who won't change his mind and won't change the subject. I lost any respect I had for him after that and haven't visited RFM since. Has he gotten any better?


That's exactly what he did. Started thread after thread after thread about this one topic. It was absolutely nutty, and a bit frightening. I honestly thought he must have been drunk or something.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_marg
_Emeritus
Posts: 1072
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 6:58 am

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

Post by _marg »

Dan Vogel wrote:
No, Marg. I’m just more balanced and moderate in my approach to Joseph Smith and early Mormons. Without your conspiracy theory, you would probably be less dogmatic and extreme. It would also help if you knew Mormon sources and historical methodology better.


Dan there is no historical methodology ..that suggests that primary witnesses' statements should always be accepted at face value. Context and motivation needs to be taken into account. Your acceptance they are sincere and honest is your particular but unjustified mindreading..not historical methodology.

You and some of the RFMers that I ran into are the other side of the apologetic coin. The Mormon apologists accept uncritically Mormon sources while rejecting anything that comes from an “anti-Mormon”, you do the opposite.


Not the case Dan, one must look at the context of evidence and take into consideration motives and benefits to the individuals involved.

You on the other hand don't take into account the context in this case, that a fraud is involved and that there are justified reasons for assuming those involved in some capacity would be motivated to present information supportive of their interests and that their claims can not be taken at face value. You pretty much seem to accept uncritically anything the early Mormons claimed, but you don't apply that same standard across the board to evidence non favorable to early Mormon claims.


I’m not trying to be the middle of anything. I’m making my own way. I’m trying to make sense of all the data.

But you and the RFMers are so polarized that you can’t even rightly judge my position. The prime example of this is the statement above. Your assertion that the only difference in my position and the apologists’ is mine doesn’t have God as an explanation is ridiculous. It makes no sense. You seem to imply that they only way to not be an apologists is to disagree with them at every turn.


Well I'm only considering one area of Mormonism and that is by whom and how was the Book of Mormon written. Your theory rests on a position that Cowdery, the Whitmers, Emma, Harris were all honest reliable people..who would have willingly exposed any fraud going on and would not have willingly participating in any way. To the extent that you uncritically accept Smith, his scribes and Book of Mormon witnesses' claims but apply a different standard which entails complete rejection of evidence not compatible with your beliefs for the Book of Mormon translation process ... I find your position apologetic. You say Smith wrote the Book of Mormon on his own, simply dictated with his head in a hat to scribes and the church says he had divine assistance. So on this issue Dan of how the Book of Mormon was written you are closely aligned to the church's position. But it's the uncritical acceptance of claims favorable to the church and the different standard you apply to evidence not favorable to the church ...that I find apologetic.


Whatever influence I have in the Mormon community (which is nearly none existent) was only increased by such extremist attacks I received at RFM.


I think the influence you have is due to respect for you as an author of books on Mormon history.
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

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

Post by _Themis »

Dan Vogel wrote:
Where do you find a preference for either term? The ages of his wives span 14-50s. I think he liked women period.


I said no to hebephilia since it is to early for any of the women Joseph married, and yes to Ephephilia since a third of his women would fit in this category. I agree that since 2/3 are older then this that he can't really be considered a preference for this category, although we don't know for sure since I think some of Joseph's polygamous activities were about more then sex.
42
_marg
_Emeritus
Posts: 1072
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 6:58 am

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

Post by _marg »

beastie wrote:Marg doesn't listen to reason regarding how Vogel and others are treated on RFM. By her own admission, she didn't even follow the entire Vogel thread, and didn't see the worst of it. I personally was told I was the product of incest and stupid for being willing to consider the pious fraud theory.


Beastie, I followed a number of the threads not just one thread, very closely. I can't say that I recall everything clearly or accurately. it's been quite a few years ..2007 right? The post with Cabbie insulting you I believe I briefly read and didn't think much of it. For you it was significant.

Typically there are always a few people in any thread of interest on any board with limited moderation who post obscene, aggressive, slanderous, disrespectful... type posts who are not representative of the majority. And on occasion participants otherwise rather rational respectful type posters will post in anger or frustration ..rather nasty type posts. Cabbie went overboard, in a derogatory comment to you but he's not the entire board. And unfortunately we can’t review the context.

I appreciate that you think Dan was treated poorly and yourself as well. But there were also at the time many rational non aggressive very knowledgeable well spoken posters...posting well reasoned arguments. J Hammel , Bob McCue, Packman, Criddle weighed in and a number of others who I don't remember their names.

You were extremely stubborn at the time and very persistent ( I can be the same way)..so perhaps with that context in mind it might explain why some such as Cabbie posted with intent to “get your goat” so to speak. Granted saying you are a product of incest is going overboard. I seem to remember he apologized to you, but maybe that's a memory I've created, because I don't clearly remember it. Most of the discussion at this point I wouldn't testify to remembering clearly. Bob McCue I recall arguing it made little difference to him if Smith was a sincere pious fraud or not..what mattered to him was simply that Smith committed a knowing fraud. But few details I remember.


I know there are some open minded people at RFM, but, at least at that time period, they tended to be cowed by Benson and Cabbie, who seemed to roam the board as "enforcers" of the "ONE TRUE" exmormon worldview.

I have never, and will never, understood the reception Dan received at RFM. It really seemed like the term "Pious" set them off, like it was some sort of absolution of Smith.


It's too bad the threads weren't saved. Because this has come up a number of times over the years since. And without the evidence it's very difficult to discuss..perception ends up being reality.

I do understand Dan's reception. It's a little bit like this board posting nasty posts to whyme. So many people disagree with whyme that when he posts..he get a pile of people here not just one person ...taking pot shots, being nasty or just simply disagreeing with him.

You and Dan had virtually no support, because virtually no one agreed with your arguments. But you don’t accept that , and instead turn it into trying to paint a picture that all the posters were following Cabbie's and Benson's lead and were unreasonable and nasty. That’s your perception and perhaps Dan’s too, and I can appreciate how it would seem that way. You want to focus in on Cabbie and Benson..and make it seem that everyone was simply following their lead and they controlled and monopolized the discussion and that they were excessively nasty in all their postings. That is simply not the case.
_why me
_Emeritus
Posts: 9589
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 8:19 pm

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

Post by _why me »

beastie wrote:
I know there are some open minded people at RFM, but, at least at that time period, they tended to be cowed by Benson and Cabbie, who seemed to roam the board as "enforcers" of the "ONE TRUE" exmormon worldview.

.


And this is the problem of RFM. It allows for one true exmormon worldview. But likewise for postmo in the early days. One must be a particular type of postmo and hold one true postmo worldview. Difference was frowned upon.

But rfm was a nasty site: very aggresive toward others who did not hold that worldview.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world.
Joseph Smith


We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…”
Joseph Smith
Post Reply