On another thread, I criticized the motives of the people behind the essays, such as Steve’s source “epiginosko”. My issue was not with the reliability or the anonimity of the source. My issue is that they are involved in deception and do not, in my opinion, deserve credit just because they share behind-the-scenes insider info on how the deception works.

In this particular case, I also doubt the motives of the source. Here are a few quotes that serve as red flags to me:

==============================================================

The source “is regarded by colleagues as respected, informed, forthright, honest”.

Since I don’t know the source, my default position is to accept this characterization as true. Nevertheless, I am not impressed by a bunch of Mormons calling one of their own informed and honest.

==============================================================

The source says “It's [the release of the essays] inoculation, but not deceit”.

I beg to differ. The whole purpose of this inoculation is to manipulate people so they don’t dig up more facts than the church thinks they should know. This manipulation is deemed necessary because church leaders think people would make other choices if they had all the info. How is that not deceit?

==============================================================

The source also believes that “They [previously identified as the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12] believe in the framing that they are presenting”.

So what? That only means they are so deluded they believe their own lies. They believe they are doing a good thing deceiving the members. That makes it worse, not better.

==============================================================

According to the source, “Their goal is to address the difficulties, but they obviously aren't going to do anything the would damage the Church--and you can't blame them for that. Any step forward is a positive step.”

Well, I can and I do blame them for that. An organization that is likely to be damaged by honesty needs it more than anything else. This is not a step forward. It is yet another effort to deceive.

==============================================================

"I wish I could build your confidence more, but suffice it to say that the main two guys in charge of this project are pretty cool and nuanced. They are definitely in the 'Marlin K. Jensen' camp of Mormonism.

What camp is that? The camp whose livelihood depends on perpetuating lies? Nuanced Mormons are just like all the other mormons except that they think they are cleverer. Well, with a toilet brush in one hand and a tithing envelope in the other, every Mormon looks the same to me.

==============================================================

“Of course, this is being put out by the Church, not a disinterested third party or university, so the bias will be blatant. Their primary concerns are addressing the complexities of history without: A. Causing faith challenges to those who don't currently have them.”

The source is obviously fine with the church keeping information from unsuspecting members but there is nothing “of course” about it. It’s deceit.

==============================================================

“what you might believe is 'purposeful omission' could be a matter of presentation and debate over interpretation.”

I have been working on detailed rebuttals of the essays for weeks now and I can tell you with absolute certainty that the deception is purposeful. I have found quotes that are cited only half so they appear to mean exactly the opposite of what they actually mean. I have found quotes that do not support the argument at all. I have even contacted the church about an unpublished source they cite and they replied they don’t have it (and the alleged author, a BYU professor, doesn't even answer my query).

And that is not counting all the logical fallacies that tie all these other falsehoods together. This is not about interpretation, it’s about purposeful deception.

==============================================================

“Keep in mind that history is not a hard science. It's often subject to conflicting interpretations and gaping holes in the documented record. Unfortunately, all scholars (both critical and faithful) tend to present their arguments as hard fact, so it makes it confusing for those who are just seeking 'the truth.”

This is standard Mormon apologetics. I can’t believe this is quoted on RfM and I’m the only one challenging this bullshit.

Here, here. The whole business is straight from 1984.

I was particularly disgusted by the brief video on lds.org of the lackey explaining and extolling the original essays--he made it clear that plausible deniability for "the Brethren" is a major priority, as is framing historical questions and answers to best suit the needs of the Church and not the truth.

I will be looking forward to reading you rebuttals.

Garrett Schwanke Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I will be looking forward to reading you rebuttals.

You better start learning Dutch then...

Touche. Perhaps a brave RfM'er who speaks Dutch and English will step in...

Wrong place



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/24/2014 01:54AM by rt.

Hi RT:

You make an excellent argument. Your points are well thought and well stated. I greatly am entertained by your statement, "with a toilet brush in one hand and a tithing envelope in the other, Mormons all look the same to me".

I think Steve B is in a position where he (very correctly) desires to keep the channel open with his informant friends. He rightfully is not being real critical of them....maybe extending them a little slack for now.

Agreed. I see it as a mixed blessing. On one end we get to know the inside scoop, but on the other it just shows that the messenger is just as deceitful (and almost deluded) as what the church is pushing.

The tone of the informant is almost one of someone who still,to some degree, believes in the church. Or thinks that putting out the essays is a good thing, when in reality its just more lies.

I knew the essays were going to be bull when I first read the "updated" scripture headings. The whole "we don't know how this belief got started" baloney was one thing that sealed the deal for me leaving the church last year.

It is still great to know that there are informants in the church. Maybe more will come forward.

What is the late war you refer to in another post?

http://wordtreefoundation.github.io/thelatewar/

Look for the video presentation in YouTube. The topic of the late war has also been added to the updated ces letter.

Thanks, not sure how I missed it!

The sources get off easy on here compared to those of us who still are Christians but have left the LDS church.

This is a terrible corellation. on the one hand, you have disgruntled Mormons who very likely have had their faith crushed and are in a position to assist in outing the church's deceitful and under-handed practices; on the other hand you have ex-Mormons that have jumped from one pirate ship to another.

And anyway, despite some notable exceptions, most people here criticize Christianity far more than they berate people for being Christians.

For my part, I hate that the Bible is still lauded as a "moral beacon" thousands of years after its conception, when an honest reading of it lays bare its advocacy of violence, slavery, sexual bigotry, sexual assault and many other acts considered crimes against humanity by modern sensibilities. Many of them - I daresay most - are proudly, gleefully committed by Yahweh! Forgive me if I don't respect a person who advocates for a book that says that it is fair for a woman to be forced to marry her rapist, or that tacitly accepts the beating and dismemberment of slaves!

But this is off-topic.

I have no strong opinion one way or the other about sources leaking information from church headquarters, as long as the information is accurate. Humanity lives in the realm of moral ambiguity.

"As long as the information is accurate"

This too is a valid point. Do I really care about the motivations of the source if what they are presenting is true? Not particularly.

I honestly could care less about the personal or moral viewpoint of some source who works in a 1984 style disinformation committee.

All I care about is the info itself.

rt Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------
> My issue is that they are involved in deception and
> do not, in my opinion, deserve credit just because
> they share behind-the-scenes insider info on how
> the deception works.

Okay, well, don't credit them then.

I make my own judgment on the matter.

I'm glad we have this channel into then inner workings of the Cult through Steve B.

I'm also glad that you said what so many were thinking about these essays, and the immorality surrounding their creation, RT.

The Cult's HAREBRAINED plan to further the Con through these ridiculous essays will fail just as surely as everything the 15 doddering old fools come up with.

Everything that the Mormon Cult's leadership does only further reveals the fraud.

"This is standard Mormon apologetics. I can’t believe this is quoted on RfM and I’m the only one challenging this bullshit."

You're on to something.

I like insider info just as much as the next person but the accuracy of the information is an issue to me. My impression is that this particular source's primary goal is to defend the church's misleading course of action, not to expose it.

Exposing appears to be the means, not the end. Waving with inside information is certainly an effective means to get the ex-Mormon community's attention. Their point - we're not deceiving, we know the articles are not perfect but they're a step in the right direction, and the GA's are honest guys who truly believe what they are doing is right - is made loud and clear. On RfM.

Well, I just don't buy it. You can't trust Mormons. Mormons lie.

. . . in your previous thread the very idea of anonymous sources:

"That's the thing about my perfect world: there is no need for anonymous sources to begin with."

("Re: My contact does not regard the source whom you disparage," posted by "rt," on "Recovery from Mormonism" discussion board," 22 Manuary 2014: at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1144037,1144502#msg-1144502)


Um, Earth to "rt": This is not a perfect world. As I noted to you earlier, the information provided by the source in question is credible and appreciated. In your perfect world, I'm sure, all sources would dress like Batman and fly through downtown SLC doing battle with the evildoers in spectacular fashion. Nixon was brought down by anonymous sources. Your perfect world only works in the pages of comic books. (And, besides, if you actually read what has been provided here, you would know that I have the actual name of the anonymous source who has been providing inside information).
_____


Finally, as to this particular source, you are making uninformed assumptions about their motives.



Edited 10 time(s). Last edit at 01/24/2014 03:38AM by steve benson.

steve benson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Um, Earth to "rt": This is not a perfect world.

I know. You're the one who brought up the superhero in a perfect world scenario, not me.

> Nixon was brought down by anonymous sources.

As I understand it, the anonymous sources pointed Woodward and Bernstein in the right direction and they then obtained independent confirmation. If all they did was write an article that some credible anonymous source told them Nixon was involved, it would not have made much of an impression.

If it was then subsequently elucidated that the source worked in the Nixon administration and that they thought Nixon believed what he was doing was OK and hey, you can't expect the administration to do things that would damage the US - well, you see where I am going with your analogy here.

> Your perfect world only works
> in the pages of comic books. (And, besides, if you
> actually read what has been provided here, you
> would know that I have the actual name of the
> anonymous source who has been providing inside
> information).

Again, the perfect world scenario isn't mine. I merely questioned the motives of the source. I never had any problem with the source being anonymous, nor did I ever express any doubt whether you knew the source's name. You are bringing up multiple straw men here.

> Finally, as to this particular source, you are
> making uninformed assumptions about their
> motives.

That may very well be the case, but since I do not know the source, all I have to go on is their information and that fits the apologetic mold only too well. In order to convince me otherwise, it isn't enough for you to appeal to your special knowledge about the source, you need to address the points I raised in the OP of this thread.

What I see is a source who appears to be perfectly OK with the church putting out misleading information. The source doesn't even consider it deception. They think it's normal for the church to act this way. They defend the GA's doing it. They hide behind some bullshit excuse about the complexities of history.

I remain sceptical. Which, again, is not to say I do not appreciate reading inside information like this, nor that I do not understand the limitations involved.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/24/2014 04:56AM by rt.

. . . without benefit of knowing critical facts behind the procurement of the information.

It's strange that you say you appreciate the source's information but then are quick to qualify that thrown bone by questioning the source's motives, while declaring that in your perfect world there would be no anonymous sources in the first place (well, duh). Now back to the real world, Batman.



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 01/24/2014 11:05PM by steve benson.

rt wrote: "What I see is a source who appears to be perfectly OK with the church putting out misleading information. The source doesn't even consider it deception. They think it's normal for the church to act this way. They defend the GA's doing it. They hide behind some bullshit excuse about the complexities of history."

From a previous thread, you know that I was one of probably many whom were asked to write doctrinal essays for the LDS church. I declined mostly due to conscience. I can't back something that I do not believe in.

In your paragraph above, did you, perhaps, mean "writer" in lieu of "source?"

I don't know the particular source that Steve is referring to and neither can I speak for the source personally. However, I have been on the earth for a very long time and know myself extremely well. It isn't that a source is "OK with the church putting out misleading information." Whether it is misleading or not, we cannot stop the deluge of information the LDS church puts out.

Writers are creatively brained. We write content that suits our employers' and/or readers' needs. We may not like what we create at certain points in our careers, but it is our employers' company, or in the case of the LDS church: Their church, their rules.

What sources do is provide insights, information that minimizes, corrects, or challenges others' objectives.

Former Tech Groupy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In your paragraph above, did you, perhaps, mean
> "writer" in lieu of "source?"

No, I meant "source". I was referring to the explicit statements that the source made (see the OP).

> Writers are creatively brained. We write content
> that suits our employers' and/or readers' needs.
> We may not like what we create at certain points
> in our careers, but it is our employers' company,
> or in the case of the LDS church: Their church,
> their rules.

I can appreciate that but that's not what this source said. They said inoculation isn't deceit, the omissions are a matter of interpretation (history being that hard and all), the Big 15 believe the way they are framing the issues; the source implies that it's only natural for an organization to lie to protect its interests.

> What sources do is provide insights, information that
> minimizes, corrects, or challenges others' objectives.

But that is not necessarily all they do. Sources may also have their own agenda and I believe, based on my arguments in the OP, that this is the case here. I haven't heard a coherent counter-argument yet.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/24/2014 08:35AM by rt.

You make some interesting points. It does seem helpful to hear what the source is saying - "inoculation isn't deceit," etc. Even that statement sheds light on how some in the church may view the essays (even though its b.s.).

Sources likely always have agendas, and I have to agree with your argument that this source appears to be apologetic (but who knows why the source is justifying things). But I want to hear what all sources are saying. What they disclose may not end up helping their agenda.

I'm glad the information has been shared and I like that you're questioning the information and the source.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/24/2014 11:52AM by thingsithink.

. . . working with Church history department correlating, for gawd's sake. One would expect such individuals to, perhaps, still evidence certain lingering attitudes and even rationalizations that come with long-time residence within the cocoon of a cult. Yet, despite their imperfections, they are still brave and perceptive enough to sense--to know, even--that some things don't look or smell right and, thus, they are telling what the can (while perhaps still struggling with internal pressures and conflicts).

Geezus, some of these crabby critics seem to want to make a morality play out of this, where the sources within the Cult still aren't good enough.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/24/2014 11:27PM by steve benson.

You are barking up the wrong tree or have been watching too many mysteries. Not everyone has a secret agenda, some ploy to extract money, greed, or even expect gratification.

Oh.... wait! My agenda is to assist in the LDS church's dismantling one piece at at time.

Except that I am not expecting a single farthing for my efforts.

Good luck, 007.

I don't get what is being argued here. Despite any motivation of sources to lay low, and any apologetic nature to their statements, the information they are providing is illuminating. It gives us a window into the workings of a cult in panic mode.

I don't remember Steve endorsing the sources explanation on why TSCC is proceeding cautiously, or implying that the way the church is rolling this out is ethical or honest. What I get from this information is the cult is acting exactly like you would expect given that it's a provable fraud.

If one of the top 15 became a source about the upper workings of TCSS finances, and his information was rife with excuses and justifications, would it be an endorsement of the sources comments if they were re-posted on RFM?

chainsofmind Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't get what is being argued here. Despite any
> motivation of sources to lay low, and any
> apologetic nature to their statements, the
> information they are providing is illuminating. It
> gives us a window into the workings of a cult in
> panic mode.

Precisely.

. . . are questioning the source's motives (without knowing a damn thing about the source, therefore making it impossible for them to make those judgments in any kind of meaningful context).

At any rate, I am inclined to cut sources a break when they are carefully trying to break loose information for outside consumption while trapped inside a concentration camp. It takes both caginess and courage. I'll leave the hip-shot judging to those who have never walked in their shoes.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/24/2014 11:16PM by steve benson.

"I am inclined to cut sources a break when they are carefully trying to break loose information for outside consumption while trapped inside a concentration camp."

That absolutely makes sense. Of course, for someone on the outside of the conversation who hears the information here, questions are good? Always question, eh?

rt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I have been working on detailed rebuttals of the
> essays for weeks

RT, why don't we pull our resources? Please contact me at mormonthink@hotmail.com

Thanks

I couldn't give two sh!ts about motives, I care about accurate information. SB has provided plausible and verifiable info, that is enough for me.