Would I Post Here if I Were Still a Believer?

[_honorentheos]

A couple of weeks ago, Blue Dream started a thread asking how well each side understood the other's arguments. The thread asked us to try our hand at placing ourselves in the other's shoes. It intrigued me, but as I read the attempts to do so already in the thread, I was struck by how knowing the poster in question flavored my reading of their post and made the experiment very difficult to consider fairly.

I have to give a lot of credit to Chris Smith, as his post in that thread against the First Vision criticism was genuine yet captured the flaws in the argument very well. I was struck by how refined and scientific his mind must be to post in that manner.

Anyway, I chose a less genuine method of testing the thread's premise. I started my first and only sock puppet in all my relatively limited time on the internet - 1 Iron.

In the interest of full disclosure, I know there are a few people who were offended by the sock. I apologize for any offense that I incurred while exploring this experiment. While I am somewhat tempted to say it was all in the interest of trying to see things from another perspective, I was still posting from the position of “owning” the 1 Iron character and in many ways the only manner I could post as a believer was to try and remember what I would have thought or how I might have responded before I left the church. So again, if I offended you I apologize. It was not my intention to offend, per se. But I certainly intended to not deviate from the believing position and as such there were times I was not sure how I could do so without seeming trite or dismissive of other’s points. Aristotle Smith and Zeezrom come to mind as posters I feel I owe a specific apology.

Anyway, regardless of how unsuccessfully or successful I may have been in attempting to pose as someone holding the opposite view as my own, I did learn a few things about how our believing friends must feel posting here.

In short, the answer to the OP would be a solid “no”. If I still believed in the LDS faith I can not see any scenario in which I would have continued posting past one or two times. This experiment has elevated the level of respect I have for our few regular believing posters, whether self-declared NOMs such as harmony and Jason, or stemelbow and absman who I now find kind of fascinating as well as others. If I were stem, I am fairly certain I would not have 10 posts, let alone thousands.

I also think I understand better why the Nehor posts as he does, and perhaps others as well.

I was contemplating whether or not to simply end 1 Iron’s career quietly, or post about this when tonight I read Dr. Shades thread about board culture. If nothing else, I thought perhaps this might give more food for thought about what the intent here may be and what the consequences are for posting as we typically do.

Not too long ago, when another believing poster proclaimed his intentions to leave the board, it was said by someone that most Mormon’s simply aren’t tough enough to handle MDB. I have since seen this same nameless person bemoan the loss of worth-while LDS posters on the board. I don't think we can have it both ways.

I don’t know that I have answers because of this experiment. It did raise interesting questions for me, though. Most importantly, the last thread I started as 1 Iron was genuinely mine – but more of a reflective question. What profit it a man, if he gain the world but lose his soul whatever that may mean?

I don’t know.

[_Polygamy-Porter]

Wow, so many sock puppets here... we should rename the board the sock drawer!

HA ha just kidding.

Sock drawer.. that was pretty good though?

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Interesting. I kept thinking 1iron's posts sounded like articles from the Ensign, and wondered if he might be a believer like Bernard Gui with a new name. Good job of creating a believable sock puppet.

[_thews]

Anyway, I chose a less genuine method of testing the thread's premise. I started my first and only sock puppet in all my relatively limited time on the internet - 1 Iron.

In the interest of full disclosure, I know there are a few people who were offended by the sock. I apologize for any offense that I incurred while exploring this experiment.

You're free to run sock puppet experiments if you wish, but I find it dishonest. There are people who ask questions hoping for someone else to take the time to respond to them and this can take effort. To then find out you were just part of an experiment, it leaves the potential for questioning the intent of new posters. How many times have you seen a new person ask questions only to be branded a troll? Zeezrom was initially accused of being a troll and it could have driven him away from the board. If this is a place for honest discussion on a sensitive topic, then it requires honesty. /climbsoffsoapbox

To answer the OP, there's a lot of brain twisting that needs to be undone in order to debate the facts regarding Mormon history. There's so much polluted data out there, the debate starts with debunking the preconceived conclusion Mormons are taught to accept. Head-in-hat with seer stones is a historical fact, yet most Mormons have no idea regarding the history of how the seer stones were used before the Book of Mormon. The Mormon websites use what Brant Gardner calls the "finger on book" method, but none of them have pictures of Joseph Smith with his face buried in a stove-pipe hat. If one can accept this translation method as logically sound and stick around to discuss it and other topics like the Book of Abraham translation, they really don't want to know the truth. For those that do stick around to debate the facts, the usual ploy is to evade answering the question using the manufactured distortion that they've been instructed to accept.

When I was a kid I remember my mother (a devout Mormon) said a young black girl asked her why she couldn't be a Mormon. After she said this, she said, "I still haven't figured that one out." What this was, was one of the inconsistencies that one must battle in order to appease cognitive dissonance. In 1978 God changed his mind and the rules changed, and after that it was like a gift was handed to her... problem solved. What wasn't acknowledged is why the rules were there before 1978. In debating the Mormon history regarding racism, most apologists attempt to portray it as something other than what it was or that it never existed. In the twisting and turning minds of some, they'll point out Elijah Abel and ignore the numerous historical facts and doctrine that define what was/is White and Delightsome.

In conclusion, I'll agree with you, in that I don't see how a person with a shred of critical thinking abilities can continue to press ignore regarding racism, polygamy, seer stones, the Book of Abraham, DNA, no factual evidence and all the other convoluted issues that don't make sense regarding Joseph Smith's truth claims. It's either true or it's not true, and if one needs to side with a multitude of facts that really aren't what they seem to be (based on distortion of those facts), there's a reason, and that reason is due to what they've been instructed to accept as truth. Learning to think critically is more difficult for people who have been trained not to, most from a young age when these skills are normally learned.

The negative attitudes of TBM's (or whatever label they find acceptable) that defend Joesph Smith's truth claims is understandable. If one is taught to label the intent of a person who doesn't believe Joseph Smith's truth claims as motivated by Satan (anti-Mormon), the truth takes a backseat and the supposed intent is focused on. What I find interesting is the motivation of someone (like Dr. Peterson) who knows all of these facts and presents him/herself as a scholar. It's like the label of "scholar" somehow validates their opinions, though the opinions avoid the facts in the counter arguments.

When someone like Simon who claims the label "Mormon" is derogatory and Mormons are actually "Christians" by definition, what's being attempted is to distance themselves from Mormon doctrine. One doesn't worship "Mormon" but a "Mormon" places belief in Joseph Smith as a prophet of God and the Book of Mormon as of God. What's most odd to me in this catch 22, is one has to know the truth that Mormonism isn't true in order to adopt this stance.

Regarding the Bible itself (something Mormons claim to place faith in), the warnings of false prophets clearly define Joseph Smith as a false prophet. These teachers to itching ears are even defined, so the catch 22 digs deeper, in that making arguments one actually knows to be false under the pretense they believe it's true (false witness) is anti-Christian.

http://biblelight.net/false-prophets.htm

2 Tim 4:2 [NIV] Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage--with great patience and careful instruction.
2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
2 Tim 4:4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

[_stemelbow]

As bleiever I post here for a number of reasons. To learn and explore, but, I must confess, the main reason why I come here, read and post is that I really am eager to learn about other people and what's driving them. I really hope I can learn from people here. With that said, I feel quite comfortable in my faith, overall, but I also am quite open to being wrong. In this I'm exploring the liberal attitudes regarding my faith, I suppose. I'm more and more feeling like I'm embracing a more fluid, dynamic view of my faith. I get excited thinking on the matter.

[_sock puppet]

As bleiever I post here for a number of reasons. To learn and explore, but, I must confess, the main reason why I come here, read and post is that I really am eager to learn about other people and what's driving them. I really hope I can learn from people here. With that said, I feel quite comfortable in my faith, overall, but I also am quite open to being wrong. In this I'm exploring the liberal attitudes regarding my faith, I suppose. I'm more and more feeling like I'm embracing a more fluid, dynamic view of my faith. I get excited thinking on the matter.

Do you consider yourself a NOM?

[_honorentheos]

Sock drawer.. that was pretty good though?

I was on the fence on this one, until you told Joseph to get back in the drawer. That sold it. It's pretty good.

[_Chap]

As bleiever I post here for a number of reasons. To learn and explore, but, I must confess, the main reason why I come here, read and post is that I really am eager to learn about other people and what's driving them. I really hope I can learn from people here. With that said, I feel quite comfortable in my faith, overall, but I also am quite open to being wrong. In this I'm exploring the liberal attitudes regarding my faith, I suppose. I'm more and more feeling like I'm embracing a more fluid, dynamic view of my faith. I get excited thinking on the matter.

You are very lucky that Schryver is away in Rome, or sulking in his tent, or maybe in a holding cell in the basement of the COB. Otherwise you would get a heavy dose of his apostasy prediction medicine.

But good luck, all the same.

[_honorentheos]

Interesting. I kept thinking 1iron's posts sounded like articles from the Ensign, and wondered if he might be a believer like Bernard Gui with a new name. Good job of creating a believable sock puppet.

Thanks I think, since my intent was to see if I could accomplish the task lined out by Blue Dream in his thread. But I also felt it best to disclose the matter after a couple of weeks since it wasn't meant to bait anyone or any group.

[Guest]

In conclusion, I'll agree with you, in that I don't see how a person with a shred of critical thinking abilities can continue to press ignore regarding racism, polygamy, seer stones, the Book of Abraham, DNA, no factual evidence and all the other convoluted issues that don't make sense regarding Joseph Smith's truth claims. It's either true or it's not true, and if one needs to side with a multitude of facts that really aren't what they seem to be (based on distortion of those facts), there's a reason, and that reason is due to what they've been instructed to accept as truth. Learning to think critically is more difficult for people who have been trained not to, most from a young age when these skills are normally learned.

Thews, I suspect that your post is accurate enough. What struck me during this experience was how quickly and mercilessly people would bypass discussion in the interest of getting a particular "gotcha" out on the table. I don't think most people would stand around passively while feeling like something important to them was being accosted. While some choose to stick around, I understand better why most simply walk away as quickly as they can.