Babyloncansuckit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When was the last time someone acting like a dick
> changed your mind?

Actually, I was Mormon at the time and at a company Party, standing around in a big circle joking around with 8 co-workers and one of them mentioned I was Mormon. Another guy who was a super Born Again, Praise the Lord! kind of Christian said, "You're Mormon?"
I said, "Yeah"
He said, "Do you really believe you're going to become a God?"

At that moment, I realized how absurd my Mormon beliefs would sound to 8 General Contractors, who I had to manage in my day to day work. I didn't want to lose credibility with these guys and had to figure out something to say that wouldn't sound completely crazy and arrogant. I had to admit to him, "No. I don't believe that I am going to become a God, but that is what Mormonism teaches. I don't believe that however. I'm sure there are lots of absurd things your church teaches too, like Virgin Birth. Isn't that kind of an oxymoron?"
I got a big laugh out of that but having to defend my absurd beliefs did make me stop and examine them more seriously, which is what finally made me start Googling all those evil anti-Mormon rumors I had heard and wanted to really research and get to the bottom of, like, wives of Joseph Smith, which led me to In Sacred Loneliness, and that alone is enough information to do the math and see that it doesn't add up.
But that wasn't what made me finally say, "It's a fraud."
What made me admit, "It's a fraud." is having Gordon B. Hinkley preach about the First Vision at General Conference, after having read all the different accounts of the First Vision in Grant Palmer's, "Insider's View of Mormon Origins". When Gordo the Clown PRofit said, "It all boils down to the First Vision. Either it happened the way JS said it happened, or it didn't. If it didn't then he perpetrated the greatest fraud in human history. If it did, then it's the greatest news since Christ's Attonement."
I said, outloud, in a sea of Penis Holders in business suits, "It's a fraud." I woke up my sleeping son and left and told my wife I was never going back. And didn't.

But there's something missing in today's Mormons, the ability to do the math and admit it doesn't add up.
They were wrong to exclude blacks from the temple and they have no excuse. Even though none of them can explain why it was right, they won't admit it was wrong. Because that would make the whole house of cards come tumbling down.
And that's when they realize this, a mental block kicks in. The fight or flight instinct drains all the blood flow from their pre-frontal cortex, then the cerebrial cortex, then it goes right down to the reptilian brain functions.
They become blind to anything you say.
They employ the old "See no evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil" attitude and either run, or attack you as evil.
And they end up accusing you of all kinds of evil and misfortune to follow you.
When they could just do the math and they wouldn't lose all credibility.

See, that is one of the easier questions to answer in Mormonism.

I wonder if this is the time when your eyes started shading over to brown?

jacob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> See, that is one of the easier questions to answer
> in Mormonism.

Not if you really believe the fairy tale they tell you in the Temple, which I did at one point. That fairy tale kind of lost its luster over time, when confronted with reality and the fact my wife hated the temple, except when it came time to get married. I knew that fairy tale didn't really exist, but it was fun to play King and Queen going to our castle (the Temple) to get married.
>
> I wonder if this is the time when your eyes
> started shading over to brown?

Try not acting on your first impulse to attack.

You know I'm pretty sure that (random)% of the conversations that you post are internal and that you present them as external, for whatever reason.

This is another one of those examples.

As for that question being easy to explain, let me show you how it is done.

Yes, I believe that as god's child I have the same capacity as god himself. In the same way that my children inherited my capacity.

jacob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You know I'm pretty sure that (random)% of the
> conversations that you post are internal and that
> you present them as external, for whatever
> reason.
>
> This is another one of those examples.
>
> As for that question being easy to explain, let me
> show you how it is done.
>
> Yes, I believe that as god's child I have the same
> capacity as god himself. In the same way that my
> children inherited my capacity.

Random % is meaningless.

Never changes my mind. Mormons are dicks and always act like dickheads so anything that resembles that i don't listen to.

Badassadam1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Never changes my mind. Mormons are dicks and
> always act like dickheads so anything that
> resembles that i don't listen to.

Was Socrates a dick to ask questions of people they couldn't just parrot cliches to answer?
If so, then I guess being a dick towards zombie missionary bots and watching their heads spin, puts me in good company.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2018 03:16PM by koriwhore.

Don't know, but if i did that people would tell me to get a life and a hobby instead of harrassing brainwashed missionaries.

Badassadam1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don't know, but if i did that people would tell me
> to get a life and a hobby instead of harrassing
> brainwashed missionaries.

Which does nothing to answer the obvious question Mormons should be asked in the midst of the #metoomovement, "How can you, in good conscience justify indoctrinating children to sing the praisez of a man who raped his followers wives and teenage daughters, in a church with a rampant sex abuse problem?"

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Badassadam1 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Don't know, but if i did that people would tell
> me
> > to get a life and a hobby instead of harrassing
> > brainwashed missionaries.
>
> Which does nothing to answer the obvious question
> Mormons should be asked in the midst of the
> #metoomovement, "How can you, in good conscience
> justify indoctrinating children to sing the
> praisez of a man who raped his followers wives and
> teenage daughters, in a church with a rampant sex
> abuse problem?"

Well if i kept thinking about what was happening to the children in that organization i would go insane. I used to be one of those kids i know exactly what they are forced to do. Those kids have no chance to be normal and will all be on anti-depressants and declared mentally ill before the age of 18.

Badassadam1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don't know, but if i did that people would tell me
> to get a life and a hobby instead of harrassing
> brainwashed missionaries.

If you were seeking out the missionaries to harass them and then were boasting of it, perhaps people probably would tell you to get a life or hobby. If you merely asked leading questions of missionaries who invaded your space, not many people here would be critical. Cheryl sprayed them with a hose, and the response here was overwhelmingly positive. I certainly applaud her for it.

I'm not against spraying with a hose if they don't back off. I have boundary issues that have to be respected so i get it. I don't even like friends to hover around me for too long.

What you do and what Socrates did are about as different as they could possibly be.

Socrates worked with people whom he knew and with whom he shared mutual respect. People advanced their own propositions in his presence and he asked questions about their assumptions, encouraging them to explore their own thinking in a safe environment.

You approach complete strangers who do not know you from (badass) Adam. You invest nothing in establishing a trusting relationship.

You advance your pet theses through rhetorical questions rather than letting them start the conversations with their propositions. You do not limit yourself to exploring their assumptions but use rhetorical questions to bring in all sorts of other stuff that you think is important. It may be important, surely, but it is not Socratic method.

You also eschew a neutral or supportive approach but adopt an abrasive tone. When your interlocutors retreat from a fight with you, the angry stranger, you attack further. So they disengage, having experienced exactly what the LDS church warned them about: the bitter and angry ex-Mo who just wants to destroy.

You are no Socrates, and you don't achieve the results he did.

> You are no Socrates, and you don't achieve the
> results he did.

If the same applies to literally everybody, it is a meaningless statement. So why say it?
As if the Socratic method of asking thought provoking questions and not settling for logical falacies, no longer works?
Thats absurd.

I'll reproduce all of my last post but the final sentence. Let's see if you understand it this time.

-----------

What you do and what Socrates did are about as different as they could possibly be.

Socrates worked with people whom he knew and with whom he shared mutual respect. People advanced their own propositions in his presence and he asked questions about their assumptions, encouraging them to explore their own thinking in a safe environment.

You approach complete strangers who do not know you from (badass) Adam. You invest nothing in establishing a trusting relationship.

You advance your pet theses through rhetorical questions rather than letting them start the conversations with their propositions. You do not limit yourself to exploring their assumptions but use rhetorical questions to bring in all sorts of other stuff that you think is important. It may be important, surely, but it is not Socratic method.

You also eschew a neutral or supportive approach but adopt an abrasive tone. When your interlocutors retreat from a fight with you, the angry stranger, you attack further. So they disengage, having experienced exactly what the LDS church warned them about: the bitter and angry ex-Mo who just wants to destroy.

> You also eschew a neutral or supportive approach
> but adopt an abrasive tone. When your
> interlocutors retreat from a fight with you, the
> angry stranger, you attack further. So they
> disengage, having experienced exactly what the LDS
> church warned them about: the bitter and angry
> ex-Mo who just wants to destroy.

Not true.
I just want an honest answer out of an official representative of the cult that exploited me by lying by ommission to me and 5 generations before me and 2 generations after me.
If I thought I could get an answer, any answer out of a General Authority, I'd ask them the same question, "How can you in good conscience indoctrinate children to sing the praises of a pedophile?" But they put seemingly innocent teenagers out there as human shields and promise to give real answers to real questions.
When I see them continue to lie by ommission to future generations, I confront them with the lies the ommit in their phony pyramid scheme and publish them here in hopes investigators look here and ask the missionaries hardball questions instead of falling for their pyramid scheme hook line and sinker.
It's the least I can do to pay restitution for having been a Doomsday Cult recruiter.
Had they not lied by ommission and commission, I never would have made the mistake of taking this Doomsday Sex CULT I was born into, unfortunately, seriously.

You can be right or you can be effective. They are not necessarily the same thing. In order to get someone to consider your position, you have to put a chink in their assumptions. A direct attack normally does not do that.

You need to make up your mind.

You tell us you want to expose people to the truth, then tell us you don't care if people leave the church.

You tell us you are using Socratic method to teach, then tell us all you want is an honest answer to an honest question.

You tell us that Einstein and Sagan believe in God, then adopt my word "metaphor."

"Metaphor" represents progress, but it doesn't transform your drive-by assaults into Socratic dialogue.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You need to make up your mind.
>
> You tell us you want to expose people to the
> truth, then tell us you don't care if people leave
> the church.
>
> You tell us you are using Socratic method to
> teach, then tell us all you want is an honest
> answer to an honest question.
>
> You tell us that Einstein and Sagan believe in
> God, then adopt my word "metaphor."
>
> "Metaphor" represents progress, but it doesn't
> transform your drive-by assaults into Socratic
> dialogue.
Like I said, I don't expect to get missionaries to say, "You know what, you're right, there is no excuse for singing the praises of a pedophile! Thats it. Im done! Fuck it!"
Not when they are being monitored and coached by their puppet masters.
But as long as their puppet masters continue to lie in wait to deceive gullible victims into subjecting their kids to abuse by forcing them to sing the praises of a pedophile, i will be there asking the questions that force them to lie through their teeth to defend their pedephile pervert, racist, sexist, homophobic abusive Doomsday CULT.

The Socratic Dialogue is presumptive and arrogant. It doesn't have a place in the classroom or in learning circles.


Because......

It presumes that the one directing the dialogue is correct and the discussion will lead the group to the director's same conclusion.

"But as long as their puppet masters continue to lie in wait to deceive gullible victims into subjecting their kids to abuse by forcing them to sing the praises of a pedophile, i will be there asking the questions that force them to lie through their teeth to defend their pedephile pervert, racist, sexist, homophobic abusive Doomsday CULT."

Sometimes a rant is just a way to avoid clarity of thought. You really need to think about what you want to achieve and how best to do it.

>
> It's the least I can do to pay restitution
> for having been a Doomsday Cult recruiter.
> Had they not lied by ommission and commission,
> I never would have made the mistake of taking
> this Doomsday Sex CULT I was born into,
> unfortunately, seriously.
>

It's the least you could do to pay restitution for having been a missionary? That's silly!

The least you could do is what the majority of exmo RMs have done, just say, "Oops, my bad!!" and move on with your life. What you've done is elevate your 'restitution' to harassament of elders and sisters.

You then aver that posting notices here of all your 'hard questions' and mormon feckless answers can serve as food for thought to investigators who read here.

But why not just post your warnings to investigators? Be as lurid as you think you need to be! All they, the investigators, need is the information they would gain here. Don't you worry that an investigator might think, "Wow! Why be such a dick to a guy just out of high school? If this Kori guy knows the truth, why can't he just make a calm presentation?"

You being a dick to kids as ignorant as you were when you were in the field seems to be unnecessary, given your announced goal.

Thanks for putting my name in your post Lot's wife, that was funny.

Maybe he's looking for answers to his questions.

Sometimes its interesting to see how people answer questions. They often reveal something about themselves.

You've read big books. Something about his questions compelled you to talk about that. You revealed something about yourself - more than once. He ferreted out some aspects of your psychology. That may or may not have been his intent. But, the power of asking questions can be an incredible tool. And it's not always the obvious that someone is after.

jay Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe he's looking for answers to his questions.
>
> Sometimes its interesting to see how people answer
> questions. They often reveal something about
> themselves.
>
> You've read big books. Something about his
> questions compelled you to talk about that. You
> revealed something about yourself - more than
> once. He ferreted out some aspects of your
> psychology. That may or may not have been his
> intent. But, the power of asking questions can be
> an incredible tool. And it's not always the
> obvious that someone is after.

Thank you.
I am keenly interested in the pathology of religious delusion, especially as it relates to the massive abuse I have witnessed in my 50+ yrs on this planet, mist of which happened in the Mormon church I grew up in. It happened because peopke intimidated the victims into silence, as they protected the church instead if their own kids. That resulted in a multi million dollar lawsuit which was finally settled out of court for a very large amount of money and a gag order on the victims.
Luckiky I wasnt one of the victims nor did I agree to a gag order. So mow I speak up about the rampant abuse on behalf of those victims I know and love who have been silenced.

I don't think there is an easy solution for the victims. We can't get revenge or revolt without breaking the law against that operation. We can't get restitution to help rebuild our lives. Attacking missionaries isn't going to give me my life back.

An open mind can learn from any source--even a dick. However, a classy delivery goes a long way in making a point.

Right.

It's not always easy to separate the message from the messenger or the messenger's personality.

Even a dick can be right or make a point for you to consider. Just because someone is nice doesn't make his point any more correct.

Evaluate any points the dick made the way you would fact check anything else. What parts check out and what parts reflect opinion? Sometimes there are no convincing facts for either side so all you can do is evaluate the quality of the argument against logical fallacies. Sometimes we just have to accept the bias of the dick and also your own bias.

Rejecting evidence simply based on delivery might make you retreat further in to your views, but it doesn't help you arrive at actual truth.

There were a few dicks here that challenged me years ago. I'm glad they did.

Opinions can change, but when they change simply because someone was nice, we should at least recognize we are making decisions based on feelings.

Humans seem more interested in feelings most the time. It's hard to look outside why we do things as emotional humans.

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Right.
>
> It's not always easy to separate the message from
> the messenger or the messenger's personality.
>
> Even a dick can be right or make a point for you
> to consider. Just because someone is nice doesn't
> make his point any more correct.
>
> Evaluate any points the dick made the way you
> would fact check anything else. What parts check
> out and what parts reflect opinion? Sometimes
> there are no convincing facts for either side so
> all you can do is evaluate the quality of the
> argument against logical fallacies. Sometimes we
> just have to accept the bias of the dick and also
> your own bias.
>
> Rejecting evidence simply based on delivery might
> make you retreat further in to your views, but it
> doesn't help you arrive at actual truth.
>
> There were a few dicks here that challenged me
> years ago. I'm glad they did.
>
> Opinions can change, but when they change simply
> because someone was nice, we should at least
> recognize we are making decisions based on
> feelings.
>
> Humans seem more interested in feelings most the
> time. It's hard to look outside why we do things
> as emotional humans.
Well said and I couldnt agree more.
Our cerebral cortex is like a mouse riding an elephant, our mamalian emotional brain, with a reptilian brain shutting down both if it feels threatened.
I think it helps to ask difficult provocative questions that Mormons cant answer except to lie. When you call bullshit, then they attack you and threaten you as if you are the abuser, for drawing attention to the abuse. When you have sworn a suicidal oath to never speak evil of the Lord's annointed theres nothing you wont do to keep that oath. Lying is nothing compared to admitting you ding the praises of a pedophile like tge Fundy MORmONS singing praises of Warren Jeffs, knowing he raped kids.

Various LDS leaders acting like dicks changed my mind about the church.

Yeah, you did the opposite of what they suggested... Probably works the same way for Lori.

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, you did the opposite of what they
> suggested... Probably works the same way for
> Lori.

Yep, most people want to get away from the attacking even if the verbal attacker is 'right'. It's science.

I've figured out over time that when people have treated me terribly it has more to do with them and their state of mind than it has to do about me. I've learned that it's best to not internalize their abusive behavior and to not take it personally. I just remove myself from the situation where I am able, and shrug it off as best I can when I can not.

I'm trying to think of the last time. I'll probably have to think for a while about when the last time was.

When a bishop (a friend who happened to be a bishop) told me that it was my fault that my gay ex was cheating on me because I wasn't giving him enough sex. He didn't know how much sex we were having, but it was obviously NOT ENOUGH.

The temple. Oh my hell, the temple. I never saw anything in it of value. the last time through when they pulled me aside for sealings, I went and sat in the foyer waiting for my husband to get out of a session and I had enough time to ponder my experiences in the temple and I never went back.

I had plenty of wtf moments with leaders over the gay issue.

I've said before that I asked my Catholic friends what they thought of priest sexual abuse and they said, "It was unfortunate." Well I can tell them that if is more than unfortunate if it happens to you. I had so many WTF moments in my journey through the mormonism/gay experience.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2018 06:54PM by cl2.

Ask my father

I don’t see how “they” being trapped in their own minds is a problem for “you”. Why wouldn’t you have compassion?

Everyone has their own flavor of BS, even the wisest among us. It’s part of being human. It makes us human. We think we can see the truths in front of us. Hardly. We see dimly if at all. Life is hard that way. I’m beginning to think that in an existence comprised of our shit-filled minds, religion can’t be all bad. We need communion. Mormonism just turned that on its head in an evil way.

Love is the only answer. The only way. The only thing that’s real. The Mormons don’t have it for easily understood reasons. Sucks to be them.

Interesting how dicks support putting babies in cages.

It took me a long time to leave the Mormon church. There were many people in my life acting like dicks in and out of the church. The dicks on the outside who told me the church was not true actually had the opposite effect - I was more determined to "hold onto the iron rod" and be a good member. On the other hand, TBM members who acted like dicks were the ones who helped me realize I wanted no part in the Mormon church. I think it's usually the "dicks" on the inside who do the most damage.

heartbroken Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It took me a long time to leave the Mormon church.
> There were many people in my life acting like
> dicks in and out of the church. The dicks on the
> outside who told me the church was not true
> actually had the opposite effect - I was more
> determined to "hold onto the iron rod" and be a
> good member. On the other hand, TBM members who
> acted like dicks were the ones who helped me
> realize I wanted no part in the Mormon church. I
> think it's usually the "dicks" on the inside who
> do the most damage.
Absolutely.
Nobody had more of an effect on making me conclude Mormonism was a fraudulent, abusive cult than the dicks who protected abusers just because they had dicks.

I would say that if you can learn something from a dick then your truly humble, which is a good thing. Of course that's no acquiescence for receiving abuse.

anono this week Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would say that if you can learn something from a
> dick then your truly humble, which is a good
> thing. Of course that's no acquiescence for
> receiving abuse.
Is it abuse to ask real questions of the organizations chosen adult representatives and keep asking until they quut lying by omission, like tgey have to 7 generations of my family?

Never!

I never associate with those types (anymore).

M@t

The original question was in response to me posting a quote by Ayan Hirsi Ali, who was asked what she is doing to help women who are enslaved and abused in Islam, to gain their freedom, "I cause CogDis, which will either drive them insane or drive them sane. I hope for the latter, which is all I can do after all."
If acting like Ayan Hirsi Ali is "acting like a dick" I'll wear that as a badge of honor.
She is definitely one of my grearest heroes. Right up there with Malala and Jane Goodall.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/24/2018 07:08PM by koriwhore.