Censorship on Exmormon.org

[_Dr. Shades]

Why did I have to register here before I could post?

Isn't that censorship?

I used to allow open posting, but then the spam-bots discovered the board and began doing their worst.

So having to register wasn't censorship; it was an anti-spambot measure.

[_lulu]

Why did I have to register here before I could post?

Isn't that censorship?

I used to allow open posting, but then the spam-bots discovered the board and began doing their worst.

So having to register wasn't censorship; it was an anti-spambot measure.

Love you Shades. I was trying to make a rhetorical point. RfM is completely open and with only one central "discussion board". They follow a different adminstrative strategy to keep things from spinning out of control. I think its a little over the top to call yours or theirs censorship.

Do you think there should be an International Moderators Day?
We could send cyber chocolates and flowers

[_beastie]

Whether or not you agree with their mission, or believe it's necessary, RFM is quite clear on what that mission is. It's a recovery group for exmormons or those struggling with Mormonism. It's not meant to be a board open for debate between believers and nonbelievers. While that entails some risk, as any one-sided conversation does, I understand the need for that particular mission, at least for a short-term. If, for example, an alcoholic is attending AA meetings, the last thing he/she needs is for someone who wants to encourage drinking to attend those meetings and criticize/analyze those who want to abstain. Moreover, due to the natural pressures from family and church members in real life, exiting members are already dealing with a lot of this type of confrontation anyway.

As to their tendency to celebrity worship and censorship: I absolutely agree that it tends to celebrity worship and that the moderation may end up a bit biased due to that. Of course, that's difficult to avoid for any moderator of any board. But it does get pretty extreme there, which is the main reason I don't post there anymore (also not needing or appreciating one-sided conversations as well). Benson, and a few others, are real problems at times. I've seen Benson go into full-melt down mode, and it ain't pretty. I've been a target of his melt-down as well as SLCabbie's (who I will never forget, told me I had to be the product of incest to be willing to entertain the pious fraud theory at all...) It can get ugly, but so can this board.

But some of the censorship I think is due to the fact that for many years, and likely still today, they are the most high-profile exmormon board and thereby the most vulnerable in terms of possible lawsuits. I knew Eric personally years ago, and know that this was a big concern of his and part of the reason he no longer wanted to actually run the board himself. So Susan may be a bit paranoid, but there may be a reason behind that paranoia. Look at how the Scientologists have gone after people on the internet. I don't think it's beyond reason to worry that the LDS church might choose that route, as well.

[_Infymus]

But some of the censorship I think is due to the fact that for many years, and likely still today, they are the most high-profile exmormon board and thereby the most vulnerable in terms of possible lawsuits. I knew Eric personally years ago, and know that this was a big concern of his and part of the reason he no longer wanted to actually run the board himself. So Susan may be a bit paranoid, but there may be a reason behind that paranoia. Look at how the Scientologists have gone after people on the internet. I don't think it's beyond reason to worry that the LDS church might choose that route, as well.

What exactly is the LDS Cult going to sue over? If they had a case, they would have gone against RFM or even my site years ago. I've got 10x more material that RFM does - and have had it online for 7 years now.

The only thing the Cult could sue over is having or linking to copyrighted material. That is the primary reason why I don't allow anything more than the smallest quotes from the Cult secret handbook.

Only once in 7 years have I been contacted by attorneys to have material on the MC taken down. It wasn't from the Cult - but a subcontractor that the Cult used for construction on Mormon Ward buildings. I had dirt on them and the seedy contracts used by the Cult including money behind the scenes.

Susan's paranoia is nothing more than delusional. Pure delusion. Susan is a nothing more than a stupid paranoid selfish bitch.

[_SteelHead]

Tangent....
Infymus could you provide a link to your exit story?
Thanks.

[_Shulem]

Susan's paranoia is nothing more than delusional. Pure delusion. Susan is a nothing more than a stupid paranoid selfish bitch.

Don't forget to call her a slut too. Women hate that word.



Paul O

[_lulu]

to be willing to entertain the pious fraud theory at all...)

That was a real low point.

[_beastie]

That was a real low point.

So you remember that? Later, Cabbie denied it, and since they don't archive posts, I couldn't prove it.

Apparently he slings around those sort of insults on a regular basis and can't be expected to remember one incident.

[_lulu]

That was a real low point.

So you remember that? Later, Cabbie denied it, and since they don't archive posts, I couldn't prove it.

Apparently he slings around those sort of insults on a regular basis and can't be expected to remember one incident.

I don't remember Cabbie making that specific statement but I wouldn't doubt it.

How could I forget the thread? Even McCune thought it was out of hand. Over empassioned argument can create the energy to just go deeper, deeper and deeper but isn't not pretty to watch.

I stayed out of it until it was all over then posted something like "I learned a lot but did it have to be that bloody?"

Benson thought it best to just say that Joseph Smith was an outright and unmitigated fraud. And that any adjective detracted from that. Let alone that in today's world the term "pious" can easily be misunderstood.

Vogel wanted to just point out that Joseph Smith was a fraud in a religious context, at least as I read him.

I don't think any historian of Mormonism has more monograph titles to his/her name than Vogel.

Benson has a well deserved ego and Vogel can be very prickly when disagreed with.

I don't think everything that Joseph Smith did was a fraud, which is not to say that he didn't do some frauds and lie. But some people have disassociative experiences. I have no reason to think that Joseph Smith was not among them. And hey, everybody lies, so why not Joseph Smith.

There's a great quote from Madam Blavatsky along the lines of she lied to get people to see the truth. Although I don't think you could get Joseph Smith to say that but on some psycological level, that was part of what he was up to. Although I don't think much of what he was trying to get people to see was the truth.

[_beastie]

I agree with your assessment. The funny part about that whole fight - it wasn't really a debate by the end but a brawl - was that I was never even categorically defending the pious fraud theory. I was simply suggesting that it ought not to be discarded outright, and ought to be seriously considered. Yet Benson and Cabbie couldn't tolerate even that suggestion. One of Cabbie's statements (other than saying I was product of incest ;) that irked me the most was him making a declaration that the issue had been settled somehow on the board, and the conclusion was Joseph Smith was simply a narcissist. Case closed. Now, maybe he was a narcissist and it was as simple as that. Certainly he was a narcissist, anyway, but the case closed part isn't clear in my view. But what bugged me was the group-think that Cabbie was insinuating had taken place on the board. I knew there had to be other posters who did not necessarily think the case was closed, either, but their voices were not allowed to be heard, due to Benson and Cabbie basically shouting them down. The group-think just didn't seem to be a healthy dynamic to me, and it does have to do with the celebrity problem.

by the way, this:

There's a great quote from Madam Blavatsky along the lines of she lied to get people to see the truth. Although I don't think you could get Joseph Smith to say that but on some psycological level, that was part of what he was up to. Although I don't think much of what he was trying to get people to see was the truth.

to me, reflects my understanding of the pious fraud theory in a nutshell. Joseph Smith thought there was some sort of "truth" that lies helped people to see. That idea is clearly reflected in his "scriptures". I think there is a good chance he was so narcissistic he was able to convince himself that that was what he was doing, rather than simply running a con. Of course he was running a con of sorts, but the most convincing conmen are the ones who are "true believers" in their own cons. That's what debating the pious fraud theory is about, to me. Did Joseph Smith believe his own con?

The idea that that discussion was verboten on RFM stunned me.