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

[_Kishkumen]

• It drives people away from the truth.
• Some of the members insult and say the most awful stuff about certain elderly men who are just trying to do good in the world and live their religion. One RfM member even insults his own grandfather. I'm sorry, but that's messed up.

Simon, what truth? Subjective truth? If you can't demonstrate that it is true, then you can't really show that disbelieving it is any kind of loss. And apologetics seems to be mostly about fudging on the facts to prevent people from disbelieving something that is not provable. If it is harmful to misrepresent the facts, then apologists are doing a great deal of harm.

Some apologists say terrible things, Simon. Just look at your pal Schryver, for one. Droopy and bcspace say terrible things all the time. And they are just the amateurs. The pros are just better at it. Sorry, Simon, but LDS apologetics is in need of a thorough housecleaning.

[_RayAgostini]

However, I believe that RfM itself is a worthless site.

I felt this way, for a long time, until I went on Post-Mo several years ago and realised that for many people it is indeed therapeutic. A recent experience has doubled my conviction about that. The therapy that occurs there can have unpredictable outcomes. It can even help some wavering members realise that they don't want to go that way, while still distancing themselves from the Church (perhaps eventually to become NOM material, or something like that, or even return to the Church).

I think I'm known for revising my opinions in light of new knowledge, and while I have little interest in RFM myself, and hardly ever read it these days, I do feel it plays a very important role for many people. It's not somewhere I'd recommend anyone staying forever, but I do think it is a very good catalyst, and a good "counter-movement" to apologetics. The "other side", if you will. I'd even go as far as saying that whoever formed it was "inspired", because it meets the needs of thousands of people "in transition" (deciding), and helps them to make decisions based on accounts from "both sides". Opposition in all things? It's also far more popular than any Mormon site I know of, and it's difficult to argue against those statistics, and whether it fulfills a need. It obviously does.

[_cafe crema]

Apologetics is a reaction to critics. If you take away one side of the equation, the other goes away, too. Since critics started it, I vote they step down and make the world a better place.

Proselytizing is a form of criticism, and so generates an apologetic response, so proselytizing started it. I vote the proselytizers step down and make the world a better place.

[_why me]

Proselytizing is a form of criticism, and so generates an apologetic response, so proselytizing started it. I vote the proselytizers step down and make the world a better place.

Please tell this to your friends on the catholic apologetic site. I am sure that they will love it.

[_why me]

However, I believe that RfM itself is a worthless site.

I felt this way, for a long time, until I went on Post-Mo several years ago and realised that for many people it is indeed therapeutic.

I remember when you went on the postmo site. They were nice as pie toward you. One reason for this is because what I was saying about them over on fair. I believe that you checked the site out because of what I was saying about that site.

However, postmo did not allow anyone to say a positive and defend that positive. They were extremely negative about the LDS church even though at that time their homepage claimed that they embraced the positives in the LDS church too. Not so on the discussion forum. I gave them heck about this. Now that part of the site has been removed.

When people develop a new thought process about the LDS church and it is negative and then they go to a site to confirm their new belief system, it is usually a good idea to have that new beleif system challenged in case of a fallacy. On postmo and on rfm they do not allow such challenges or debates. All negatives about the LDS church are given kudos and group hugs. These sites just become bias confirmations and as such they are not very theraputic. Unless having a possible wrong bias being confirmed with kudos and group hugs is theraputic but I doubt it.

[_why me]

What do people think about Postmormon.org? The flavor there is different from RfM, and from here too.

Same negativity but packed in a differnt brand. Most of these exmormon sites never allow true debate. They hide under the cover of a safe place to be. But actually they become controlling places to be because one's negative bias against the LDS church can not be challenged or disagreed with a positive.

I can not see such bias confimation sites as theraputic.

[_asbestosman]

I am waiting for the punchline here. What is so awful about RfM? People vent and commiserate, find a little sense of community? What is the measurable harm that it is doing?

Venting isn't harmless--it's counterproductive. Unless of course increasing one's disposition to anger is some kind of goal.

I hear about how bad it is, but I see equally repugnant garbage from certain LDS apologists all of the time. Why don't we shut them down? Who knows but that these apologists are even more harmful than RfM?

That may very well be. Perhaps my tribal bias blinds me to it. In any case, I do think it wise for me to try venting less. As to how successful I'll be--that remains to be seen.

[_asbestosman]

Since critics started it

All mature sentences begin with the phrase about others starting it. Always.

Uh, yeah.

[_why me]

I suppose that if one hates jews one can create a site that blasts jews complete with a swastika here and there. And then create a discussion forum blasting jews where people can engage in jew bashing as therapy. I suppose that this will add to our humanity as human beings. Maybe not, right?

Is RFM any different when it comes to Mormons?

[_asbestosman]

Why Me might have had a point, but he chose to fulfill Godwin's Law. Move along. Nothing to see there.