Last week poster koriwhore had a thread with a sub line similar to what I posted above. I had to shorten it a bit to get my subject line to fit.

A follow on thread, also by koriwhore, had sub line "What are you trying to gain". https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2134271

I made the following statement toward the end of thread:

> BTW, your questions are not particularly honest or direct. They are often misleading and loaded, designed to antagonize.

To which koriwhore responded:

How?
I honestly want to know how anybody sings the praises of a man who is a well kniwn child rapist who clearly abused his obscene amount of power over his followers to cuckold his followers by raping their wives and teenage daughters.


OK, fair enough. Just saying they were misleading and loaded questions, without giving any specifics, is not particularly helpful. So here are my specific problems with the questions.


"Missionaries lied through their GD teeth..."
Lied and liar get thrown around a lot here. Just because a statement is false does not make the person stating it a liar. They have to know it is false, and deliberately use the false statement to mislead or otherwise manipulate. That idea was already dissected in the thread linked above, so I will just leave it at that. What they were saying was false. You don't know that they were lying.

"wife swapping..."
Besides being a phrase that screams "1970s", wife swapping is understood to be an arrangement between couples where they willing exchange partners. We have no evidence that either Emma, nor the spouses of the women JS pursued were aware of, approved of, or participated in exchanging partners. What he did was adultery, seduction, even sexual predation. It was not "wife swapping". You used the phrase to incite and inflame and shame, not to accurately convey information.

"rape."
When we see the word "rape" without qualifiers, the assumption is you are talking about violent, or at least forced sexual assault. There is no evidence that JS ever raped anyone in that sense. He may have, but I am not aware of any statements or other proof that he ever did anything other than verbally pressure women with that angel with a flaming sword hokum. I doubt that would meet the legal definition of rape.

Statutory rape is a different crime, with different punishments, and it may not have even been on the books in JS's day. In any case, it is considered a separate and less serious crime. If someone commits a sexual assault against a minor, they would normally be charged with sexual assault, not statutory rape, it being the more serious charge. A prosecutor would go with the lesser charge if she did not think it was possible to get a conviction on the more serious charge.

So, statutory rape and rape are not the same crime. You routinely call JS a rapist in spite of the fact that there is no evidence that he raped anyone. You repeatedly call him a rapist to incite and inflame. Calling him a statutory rapist (which he was was, at least ethically, if not technically if the laws were not yet on the books) doesn't have the same inflammatory zing.

"pedophile"
This is a charge you level at JS on a constant basis. That is sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. There is no evidence of that either. Hardly anybody knows the words for sexual attraction to mid to late teens (ephebophilia) or earlier post-pubescent teens (hebephilia) (my spell checker doesn't recognize either word), so I suppose you can claim a little slack on that. But the definition of pedophile still stands, and there is no evidence he pursued prepubescent children.

"cuckold his followers by raping their wives and teenage daughters".
You frequently refer to raping other men's wives. Women tend to get cranky when their primary defining characteristic is stated as being the property of a man. True, the traditional European/Christian wedding ceremony is a transfer of ownership of a woman from her father to her husband, a tradition finally showing signs of rigor mortis. But your phrase above implies that the real crime is against the husbands and fathers. Really?

And Finally, "sing praises to a pedophile and rapist..."
They are singing praises to what is in their view the prophet of The Restoration. Leaving aside that there is no evidence he was either a pedophile or rapist, they are either not aware that he was a sexual predator or they don't believe the accusation. So, they are not singing praises to such a person. As with your claim that they lied through their teeth, intent matters here. Their intent is not to sing praises to a pedophile and rapist.



So, that's why I think your questions are not "honest questions", as you repeatedly claim. Your claims about JS are hyperbolic in the extreme, if not downright lies. "JS was a sexual predator who slept with women, both single and married, and in some cases girls as young as early teens". That would be a true statement, not to mention not sexist. "Pedophile raping other men's wives and daughters" is not supported by evidence, and is at least marginally sexist.


Other people in the previous thread have already disagreed with your claim that your questioning is "the Socratic Method" to try to educate Mormons. They made good points. I see such inflammatory and misleading "questions" as basically cyberbullying. That makes me and apparently a fair number of other people uncomfortable. I'm no fan of Mormons or their brainwashed missionary minions, but bullying is still wrong, no matter who does it. Golden Rule and all that.

Then you bring the transcripts of these attacks here and drop them on the electronic living room carpet like a cat dragging in a dead mouse, expecting praise and admiration. Ummmm.


Calling these attacks "the Socratic method" is rather like calling an arson attack on a grocery store "cooking".

[cue rimshot]

Well done, BoJ! Never have we needed clarity of thought, precision of language, and intellectual generosity more than we do now. Your post highlights, calls for, and demonstrates all of these intellectual virtues. Thank you.

The girls were of legal age in Joseph Smith's time. The age of consent was between 10-14 in most states. While it may have been outside the norm,ecclesiastical abuse and morally reprehensible it wasnt rape by the laws of the time. Rape is a legal term and laws were different then.
Joseph Smith cannot be considered a rapist by our laws when it wasnt rape when he lived.

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The girls were of legal age in Joseph Smith's
> time. The age of consent was between 10-14 in most
> states.

Illinois statute in effect in 1840:
"All male persons over the age of 17 years, and females over the age of 14 years, may contract and be joined in marriage : Provided, in all cases where either party is a minor, the consent of parents or guardians be first had, as is hereinafter required."

Notice there is no mention of an "age of consent" for having sex. It was assumed by the law that the only legal sex was within a legal marriage. And in Illinois at the time, no one under 14 could be married, and over 14 until 18 they had to have their parents' consent.

Finally, let's keep in mind that Joseph was only ever married to Emma. None of his other "spiritual wives" were ever part of a legal marriage. Ever.


> it wasnt rape by the laws of the
> time. Rape is a legal term and laws were
> different then.

Right. It wasn't rape.
It was, however, illegal -- since he didn't marry any of these women.

And other than "newer" laws that essentially revoke a man's "right" to rape his wife, rape laws haven't really change much at all in the intervening 178 years.

BD and Hie, thx for the clarifications.

“in effect in 1840”

Whoa, so they passed a statute just for him?

"Well done"...you gotta be kidding me. This is BS. BOJ sounds like he is defending Joseph Smith and his stupid cult. JS had sex w/ a 14 year old girl (and probably others that we don't know about)...why defend this scum bag?

If I'm being honest, my biggest problem with the posts is they all seem to be caricatures of naive missionaries. Where are the thoughtful responses? It leads me to question the authenticity of the chats.

OK, I'll take a crack at this.

I don't know how "willing" the fourteen-year old girls were. But if they were threatened with an angel + flaming sword--and they really believed it, you know, coming from a prophet and all, why is that much different than JS holding a knife to her throat?

Never mind if she's 14 or 30, saying, "Your family will die if you don't have sex with me" in this day and age would be considered a threat; if the woman believed this, really didn't want to have sex, but consented to sex because of this fear, it wouldn't really be "consent" at all.

I don't know what really happened. But some of these follow-up evaluations are speculating "what if" and if that's the case, I may speculate, too. If things played out in a scenario I described above, then it was rape. If Koriwhore believes that scenario, he's welcome to present his belief to the missionaries as such.

I agree with this. By modern standards what JS did was in many cases "rape" based on the power differential. We can call it "ethically" rape even if it was not "legally" rape.

But having registered that exception, I think that BoJ is saying something very important.

Furthermore....

I don’t see anything by Koriwhore about rape being a reference to laws of the time. An accepted definition of rape, even in the 1800’s, has been forcible sex without consent. How the courts ruled is another matter….yes, plenty of men weren't convicted. For example, it wasn’t “a crime” to rape a slave. But was it rape? Yeah, I think it was. Was what JS did to those women rape? Yeah, I think it was.

That is what I meant by ecclesiastical abuse, but it would be hard to prove as Kimball agreed to the marriage. Having sex outside of marriage may have been illegal for all ages, but it happened and if the people involved were willing it isnt rape.

It is so vital that we are super honest in telling Church history, doctrines, and everything just the way it has been because if we are ever the slightest bit dishonest then people, even members of the Church, might get Doubts in their heart/mind about the Church being true - i.e. honest/transparent. Sure it can be embarrassing on some challenging matters. However its only the people with very super weak faith that would shy away from just saying the truth on everything. That's because everyone knows that if Heavenly Father is an all-powerful being and creator of worlds without number then he is totally capable of handling any curve ball thrown his way by some silly trivial anti-Mormon on such a trivial planet like Earth in this trivial galaxy of ours.

I am sympathetic to the argument that the type of psychological leverage JS exerted might even in a legal sense rise to the level of being sufficiently threatening to constitute rape. So, rape, maybe, and in some cases. We'll never know what a judge or jury then would have decided, because the situation never arose.

But this is all kind of beside the point. Mormons don't even believe that JS was a sexual predator, so fine nuances aren't relevant. They don't buy the premise, even if it is true.

But there are so many other aspects of Mormonism that they clearly do believe that can easily be debunked. Why not use that? There is no evidence to support the BoM and plenty of disconfirming evidence. Same for the BoA. The history of the First Vision and Melchizedek Phood restoration make it clear these were invented stories made up long after the supposed incidents. LDS Inc still has the characteristics of a cult. None of that depends on JS's sexual history.

Go after the stuff they actually believe. They'll just dismiss calling him a pedophile and rapist. I knew about JS and polygamy. That troubled me, but it was not why I left. I had had a university level physics series, and understood c-14 dating. The BoA papyri could not have possibly been written by Abraham. Whether or not God commanded polygamy was no longer a question I needed to resolve.

It is possible to believe JS "raped" people in a moral sense while being unsure in a legal sense due to the ambiguities in the law and social norms at the time. I merely want to avoid saying he did not use his power to sexually abuse people.

Putting that (important) point aside, I couldn't agree more with your OP or with what you say here. The problem, I reckon, is that much of this is driven by one's own demons. If one feels impelled to pick fights with kids, pick fights one will. If one is angry about sex, sex will be the pretext.

Socratic method, rational discussion, honest approach: these require a modicum of respect for one's interlocutor and a desire to help him see the light. If the respect is lacking, so too will be any significant probability of persuasive success.

I agree. Having been in small off-mainstream groups myself {{cough}} I can attest to your words being accurate. Anything that came across as weird, outlandish, hateful, but especially inaccurate would not sway me towards the side of a person approaching me that way.

I was lucky I guess in that the fallacy of sheer numbers occurred to me - no way could I see that God would only "save" a small portion of all of earth's population, as JWs, for instance, believe. How would that make any sense I wondered. Another powerful insight for me was that the world was full of wonderful people, well-meaning, spiritual (in their own ways, including not at all if that makes sense), and they just didn't all believe in the same ideas. Similar principles, yes. Exact doctrine, no. It made no sense to me that they should all be killed off. I thought about that in detail one day while I was a JW missionary back East - "All these people. Nobody ever going to convert". And that didn't seem terrible to me.

I agree that challenging true believers in an aggressive manner, on points of extreme disagreement is not an approach likely to open minds. Rather, in that environment, believers tend to hunker down. It most often results in their doctrines and practices being reinforced in their minds. Exactly the opposite of a person's intent when questioning them.

Attacking the founder of a person's religion is extremely unlikely to get them to stop and listen and think and change. If that is the intent. Reason may work if a better approach is tried. Anger, or words or actions that come across as angry, not likely.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/16/2018 11:51PM by Nightingale.

Word choices can change the tone of any sentence.

Cheryl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Word choices can change the tone of any sentence.
Exactly.
Wikipedia defines rape as:

a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual penetration carried out against a person without that person's consent. The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority, or against a person who is incapable of giving valid consent, such as one who is unconscious, incapacitated, has an intellectual disability or is below the legal age of consent.[1][2][3] The term rape is sometimes used interchangeably with the term sexual assault.

And Joseph and Brigham definitely abused their power to exploit their followers by having sex with their wives and teenage daughters.
How is that any different from, Harvey Weinstein or Warren Jeffs?
Now ExMos are rape apologists?
The abusive Doomsday sex CULT lied by ommission to 7 generations of my family and you all are ok with them continuing to lie by ommission to exploit future generations?
I care about calling out predatory MORmONs because far too many people I know and love have fallen victim to this abusive cult, which protects penisholders snd blames victims, still to this day.
If you all dont give a shit about the victims, I guess I am not among like minded people.

The writer or speaker get to choose their words. If listeners or readers don't like them, they need to stop listening or reading. They don't have a right to determine someone else's message.

I enjoy your posts.
Don't stop.

Kind of having major issues with coerced sex not being considered sexual assault that rises to the level of rape. I've wanted to throw that out there since I first read the OP.

Can't/won't read the rest of the thread.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/17/2018 11:42AM by Beth.

Brother Of Jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Last week poster koriwhore had a thread with a sub
> line similar to what I posted above. I had to
> shorten it a bit to get my subject line to fit.
>
> A follow on thread, also by koriwhore, had sub
> line "What are you trying to gain".
> https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2134271
>
>
> I made the following statement toward the end of
> thread:
>
> > BTW, your questions are not particularly honest
> or direct. They are often misleading and loaded,
> designed to antagonize.
>
> To which koriwhore responded:
>
> How?
> I honestly want to know how anybody sings the
> praises of a man who is a well kniwn child rapist
> who clearly abused his obscene amount of power
> over his followers to cuckold his followers by
> raping their wives and teenage daughters.
>
>
> OK, fair enough. Just saying they were misleading
> and loaded questions, without giving any
> specifics, is not particularly helpful. So here
> are my specific problems with the questions.
>
>
> "Missionaries lied through their GD teeth..."
> Lied and liar get thrown around a lot here. Just
> because a statement is false does not make the
> person stating it a liar. They have to know it is
> false, and deliberately use the false statement to
> mislead or otherwise manipulate. That idea was
> already dissected in the thread linked above, so I
> will just leave it at that. What they were saying
> was false. You don't know that they were lying.

They lied when they said God commanded Joseph and Brigham to marry other men's wives. When I asked them where they read that, they refused to answer, because they didn't read it, they made it up. That's a lie. And they lie by omission every day they peddle the false narrative that Joseph only had one wife, Emma, which the Mormon church lied to me about for the first 40 years of my life and for the 5 generations before me, by omitting that important disclosure. That's fraud if you do that on a house sale, it voids the contract.

>
> "wife swapping..."
> Besides being a phrase that screams "1970s", wife
> swapping is understood to be an arrangement
> between couples where they willing exchange
> partners. We have no evidence that either Emma,
> nor the spouses of the women JS pursued were aware
> of, approved of, or participated in exchanging
> partners. What he did was adultery, seduction,
> even sexual predation. It was not "wife swapping".
> You used the phrase to incite and inflame and
> shame, not to accurately convey information.

They abused their authority to share with their follower's wives, aka, wife swapping or more accurately, cuckolding.

>
> "rape."
> When we see the word "rape" without qualifiers,
> the assumption is you are talking about violent,
> or at least forced sexual assault. There is no
> evidence that JS ever raped anyone in that sense.
> He may have, but I am not aware of any statements
> or other proof that he ever did anything other
> than verbally pressure women with that angel with
> a flaming sword hokum. I doubt that would meet the
> legal definition of rape.
>
Again, they abused their authority to have sex with their follower's wives and teenage daughters.

"Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual penetration carried out against a person without that person's consent. The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority, or against a person who is incapable of giving valid consent, such as one who is unconscious, incapacitated, has an intellectual disability or is below the legal age of consent."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape

I'd say Joseph and Brigham's sexual abuse of their follower's wives and teenage daughters qualifies as rape by abuse of authority and below the age of consent.

> Statutory rape is a different crime, with
> different punishments, and it may not have even
> been on the books in JS's day. In any case, it is
> considered a separate and less serious crime. If
> someone commits a sexual assault against a minor,
> they would normally be charged with sexual
> assault, not statutory rape, it being the more
> serious charge. A prosecutor would go with the
> lesser charge if she did not think it was possible
> to get a conviction on the more serious charge.
>
> So, statutory rape and rape are not the same
> crime. You routinely call JS a rapist in spite of
> the fact that there is no evidence that he raped
> anyone. You repeatedly call him a rapist to incite
> and inflame. Calling him a statutory rapist (which
> he was was, at least ethically, if not technically
> if the laws were not yet on the books) doesn't
> have the same inflammatory zing.

Here we have RfM's rape apologist. That's it. Make excuses for child rape. It makes you sound like a devotee of Warren Jeffs.

> "pedophile"
> This is a charge you level at JS on a constant
> basis. That is sexual attraction to pre-pubescent
> children. There is no evidence of that either.
> Hardly anybody knows the words for sexual
> attraction to mid to late teens (ephebophilia) or
> earlier post-pubescent teens (hebephilia) (my
> spell checker doesn't recognize either word), so I
> suppose you can claim a little slack on that. But
> the definition of pedophile still stands, and
> there is no evidence he pursued prepubescent
> children.

splitting hairs.


> "cuckold his followers by raping their wives and
> teenage daughters".
> You frequently refer to raping other men's wives.
> Women tend to get cranky when their primary
> defining characteristic is stated as being the
> property of a man. True, the traditional
> European/Christian wedding ceremony is a transfer
> of ownership of a woman from her father to her
> husband, a tradition finally showing signs of
> rigor mortis. But your phrase above implies that
> the real crime is against the husbands and
> fathers. Really?

I have empathy for the victims, including the husbands, like Henry Jacobs, who was sent packing for an overseas mission 8 times as both JS and BY had their way with his wife and finally fathered a child with her. Apparently you have zero empathy for all these victims.

> And Finally, "sing praises to a pedophile and
> rapist..."
> They are singing praises to what is in their view
> the prophet of The Restoration. Leaving aside that
> there is no evidence he was either a pedophile or
> rapist, they are either not aware that he was a
> sexual predator or they don't believe the
> accusation. So, they are not singing praises to
> such a person. As with your claim that they lied
> through their teeth, intent matters here. Their
> intent is not to sing praises to a pedophile and
> rapist.
>
There's plenty of evidence. Have you read In Sacred Loneliness or Insider's View of Mormon Origins? I find them compelling. I don't care what they believe, they're still singing the praises of somebody who's worse than Warren Jeffs. You sound like somebody defending the follower's of Warren Jeffs, who sing his praises while he rots in jail on child rape convictions. WHo cares what they believe? They're fucking delusional!

>
>
> So, that's why I think your questions are not
> "honest questions", as you repeatedly claim. Your
> claims about JS are hyperbolic in the extreme, if
> not downright lies. "JS was a sexual predator who
> slept with women, both single and married, and in
> some cases girls as young as early teens". That
> would be a true statement, not to mention not
> sexist. "Pedophile raping other men's wives and
> daughters" is not supported by evidence, and is at
> least marginally sexist.
>
Yeah it is an honest question. I really want to know how people can continue singing his praises, knowing he 'married' his follower's wives and teenage daughters as young as 14, when there's no law that was ever written legalizing such behavior, but plenty of laws and commandments condemning it as adultery. So knowing this, why sing the guy's praises?

>
> Other people in the previous thread have already
> disagreed with your claim that your questioning is
> "the Socratic Method" to try to educate Mormons.
> They made good points. I see such inflammatory and
> misleading "questions" as basically cyberbullying.
> That makes me and apparently a fair number of
> other people uncomfortable. I'm no fan of Mormons
> or their brainwashed missionary minions, but
> bullying is still wrong, no matter who does it.
> Golden Rule and all that.


> Then you bring the transcripts of these attacks
> here and drop them on the electronic living room
> carpet like a cat dragging in a dead mouse,
> expecting praise and admiration. Ummmm.
>
>
> Calling these attacks "the Socratic method" is
> rather like calling an arson attack on a grocery
> store "cooking".
>
>
"The Socratic Method, also can be known as maieutics, method of elenchus, elenctic method, or Socratic debate, is a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presumptions."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method

Me asking thought provoking questions of Mormon representatives, and not settling for cliches and lies, meets that definition.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...Socratic debate, is a form of cooperative
> argumentative dialogue between individuals...

I'm not going to touch most of that.

I'll just point out that there's nothing "cooperative" about your on-line sessions with the mishies. Which was pretty much BoJ's point.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> koriwhore Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ...Socratic debate, is a form of cooperative
> > argumentative dialogue between individuals...
>
> I'm not going to touch most of that.
>
> I'll just point out that there's nothing
> "cooperative" about your on-line sessions with the
> mishies. Which was pretty much BoJ's point.

Bullshit!
They are there for the sole, advertised purpose of giving "real answers ti real questions".
When I ask real questions, instead of doing what they advertise, they lie through their GD teeth by claiming God told Joseph and Brigham to rape all those victims, when theres not a single word written in all of scripture, including MORmON scripture to back up that adulterous lie and plenty of commandments that say just the opposite.

That may be the case.

Still not "cooperative."
So not Socratic debate.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That may be the case.
>
> Still not "cooperative."
> So not Socratic debate.
Bullshit.

I suppose this is socratic as well?

Here's the way I see it

Legally, the law threw JS in jail.

Socially, the community tarred and feathered JS in occasion, and stormed the jail and JS was killed.

Legally, it was illegal to marry multiple women in the State of Illinois (Nauvoo)

Based on Mormon morality, it was illegal to be an adulterer.

The fact that Korihor does what he can to advertise the deceptive Mormon cult I think is ok. Everybody reacts differently, and has different emotions on how this cult continues to scam.

"Everybody reacts differently, and has different emotions . . ." Nothing wrong with that. One person's reaction is no better than someone else's. We each have a right to express how we think and feel.

6 iron Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here's the way I see it
>
> Legally, the law threw JS in jail.
>
> Socially, the community tarred and feathered JS in
> occasion, and stormed the jail and JS was killed.
>
> Legally, it was illegal to marry multiple women in
> the State of Illinois (Nauvoo)

That and it has ALWAYS been illegal in every civilized society (Governed by written laws) to 'marry" another mans wife. Even the Mormons own "Law of the Priesthood" condemns that as adultery. And MORmON misdionariez lie through their GD teeth by using it to justify rape.
>
> Based on Mormon morality, it was illegal to be an
> adulterer.

And Mirmin law, yet they're fine singing the praises of an adulterer/rapist/pedophile.

>
> The fact that Korihor does what he can to
> advertise the deceptive Mormon cult I think is ok.
> Everybody reacts differently, and has different
> emotions on how this cult continues to scam.

Its not just a scam, its an abusive CULT that has claimed far too many victims, enabled by weak people who, like the OP, excuse the abuse, as it continues.
Pathetic.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/17/2018 08:08PM by koriwhore.

I wonder what our persistent ex-Mormon hopes to achieve? Does he want to bolster himself when denouncing these missionaries?

If I think back to when I was a Latter-day Saint battling all heresies on the Internet, this poster would not have reached me.

First, his arguments are over semantics. But his adversaries are not lying (since they honestly believe Joseph Smith was a prophet) and technically speaking Joseph was *not* involved in wife swapping or rape.

Moreover, he will not reach his audience: he never sways the missionaries and I doubt that transcripts of his exchanges cause anyone to re-consider their positions in the Church. When an argument is so easily rebutted, you actually strengthen the resolve in opponents.

If they research his positions, they learn counter arguments. The best cases should be those that leave the answer in pure testimony. Everyone (on either side) knows that if you can bring your adversary to the brink, they are hanging by a weak thread.

I think we need to express our own opinions as clearly as we can. The "audience" can interpret what we say as best they can.

Do we write on RfM because we want to help each other recover? Or do we do it to impress some unspecified "audience?"

Are we here for fellowship and recovery or are we putting on an act for TBMs who might lurk?

I think we should be mainly concerned with recovery which is the name of the forum.

Carping about wording to impress lurkers is a fool's errand.

Cheryl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think we need to express our own opinions as
> clearly as we can. The "audience" can interpret
> what we say as best they can.
>
> Do we write on RfM because we want to help each
> other recover? Or do we do it to impress some
> unspecified "audience?"
>
> Are we here for fellowship and recovery or are we
> putting on an act for TBMs who might lurk?
>
> I think we should be mainly concerned with
> recovery which is the name of the forum.
>
> Carping about wording to impress lurkers is a
> fool's errand.
And why beat around the bush?
I call it how I see it.jS and NY were rapists in my book. Why sing tgeir prsisrs?

Except this poster plays strictly for an "audience." He wants to engage with missionaries. He posts these dialogues widely as evidence that Mormons are liars. He hopes to shatter weak testimonies.

But he will *not* achieve those objectives with his "audience." In fact, when his arguments are rebutted, he reinforces his "audience" in their convictions. His works are not productive.

But we don't know about everyone else who lurks here. Personally, I don't believe much in esp or mind reading, especially when talking about strangers out in the vast world of the internet.

No one here is singing their praises. However, I find the semantics important because referring to him as a rapist and a pedophile is inaccurate- in some sense- and when you repeat these claims to believing Mormons and in their view it is untrue it only strengthens their ideas that ExMormons are liars and are willing to do anything to defame the church and Joseph Smiths name and only strengthens their resolve to continue to testify and preach what they consider to be true.


I think this is the original posters point. Presenting the facts as more accurate and less hyperbolic may go towards convincing these missionaries of the truth, although I still doubt it since they are so indoctrinated they chose (choose) to serve a cult for months and years in Proselytizing missions.

The somewhat gentler approach, though not your style, may in the long run be more effective. However, I consider these mostly wasted words, since time and time again you have proven you don’t seem to have any interest except in engaging in aggressive conversations online with missionaries that always end in closed chat sessions and probably only reinforces their beliefs about ExMormons being liars and willing to obfuscate and confound the truth in service of their agenda.

"The somewhat gentler approach, ... may in the long run be more effective."


Self-evidently true. When I was younger, and most anxious to prevent my children from being 'persuaded' into mormonism by their maternal relatives, I made it abundantly clear that proselytizers were not welcome in my home.

The children are all grown, decidedly not mormon, and I have relaxed my stance somewhat. But, we haven't seen missionaries in about 3 years. I'm on the JW blacklist, perhaps I'm on the momo blacklist as well.

Interesting comments

I will concede that missionaries are less than honest in dealing with JS and polygamy. I think much of the dishonesty is born of ignorance, and they just make stuff up because they don't have a good answer. They are not lying to hide the fact that they know what you are claiming is true. I'm confident the vast bulk of the missionaries you talked to don't believe much, or perhaps none of your charges. They're making stuff up because they "know" you have to be wrong. They're coping the best the can. I wouldn't call that a bald-faced lie. I wouldn't call it honest either.

The original point I was trying to make is that I don't consider your questions all that honest either. To recap:

wife swapping - no evidence. Adultery, bigamy, fraud, yes. Wife swapping, no. Your use of that accusation is dishonest.

pedophile (sexually attracted to prepubescent children) - no evidence. Underage children, yes, prepubescent, no. You use the term for its shock value, not for its accuracy. That's dishonest. "Some as young as 14" is accurate and quite bad enough. Why not use that?

Rape and statutory rape are two different crimes. You consistently conflate the terms. Actually, I believe the actual legal codes rarely use the word "rape", preferring terms that can be more clearly defined, like "sexual assault". I have essentially no expertise on laws regarding sexual assault or statutory rape, and I've already upset Beth, so ouch for that.

I have read "In Sacred Loneliness". I loaned it out and moved, so I can't double check now, but as I recall, about half the women/girls that JS was sealed to left the Church after his death. Compton published statements from most (all?) of the women, many of whom had no reason to protect the Mormon Church or Smith. I don't recall a single one of them describing their interactions with Smith as rape. I don't mean to downplay the gross power imbalance. Some of the women were clearly furious with him and considered him a lying immoral double dealing weasel. But I don't recall any of them calling him a rapist. That has to count for something. They were there.

So when I say there is no evidence he was a rapist, that's what I was referring to. Personal statements of the women involved. That doesn't mean that he wasn't a rapist.


I suppose that's enough. It is clear koriwhore disagrees. There has been a fair amount of pushback of the "oh god, here we go again" sort on his posts of his conversations with missionaries. I had very specific problems with their level of, IMO, shrill and gross exaggeration and bullying tone. Hopefully I put some words to others inchoate feelings.

One request: Drag in fewer dead mice, please. I can tolerate them reasonably well if I have enough time to sort of forget the last one.

Brother Of Jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Interesting comments
>
> I will concede that missionaries are less than
> honest in dealing with JS and polygamy. I think
> much of the dishonesty is born of ignorance, and
> they just make stuff up because they don't have a
> good answer. They are not lying to hide the fact
> that they know what you are claiming is true. I'm
> confident the vast bulk of the missionaries you
> talked to don't believe much, or perhaps none of
> your charges. They're making stuff up because they
> "know" you have to be wrong. They're coping the
> best the can. I wouldn't call that a bald-faced
> lie. I wouldn't call it honest either.
>
> The original point I was trying to make is that I
> don't consider your questions all that honest
> either. To recap:
>
> wife swapping - no evidence. Adultery, bigamy,
> fraud, yes. Wife swapping, no. Your use of that
> accusation is dishonest.
>
> pedophile (sexually attracted to prepubescent
> children) - no evidence. Underage children, yes,
> prepubescent, no. You use the term for its shock
> value, not for its accuracy. That's dishonest.
> "Some as young as 14" is accurate and quite bad
> enough. Why not use that?
>
> Rape and statutory rape are two different crimes.
> You consistently conflate the terms. Actually, I
> believe the actual legal codes rarely use the word
> "rape", preferring terms that can be more clearly
> defined, like "sexual assault". I have essentially
> no expertise on laws regarding sexual assault or
> statutory rape, and I've already upset Beth, so
> ouch for that.
>
> I have read "In Sacred Loneliness". I loaned it
> out and moved, so I can't double check now, but as
> I recall, about half the women/girls that JS was
> sealed to left the Church after his death. Compton
> published statements from most (all?) of the
> women, many of whom had no reason to protect the
> Mormon Church or Smith. I don't recall a single
> one of them describing their interactions with
> Smith as rape. I don't mean to downplay the gross
> power imbalance. Some of the women were clearly
> furious with him and considered him a lying
> immoral double dealing weasel. But I don't recall
> any of them calling him a rapist. That has to
> count for something. They were there.
>
> So when I say there is no evidence he was a
> rapist, that's what I was referring to. Personal
> statements of the women involved. That doesn't
> mean that he wasn't a rapist.
>
>
> I suppose that's enough. It is clear koriwhore
> disagrees. There has been a fair amount of
> pushback of the "oh god, here we go again" sort
> on his posts of his conversations with
> missionaries. I had very specific problems with
> their level of, IMO, shrill and gross exaggeration
> and bullying tone. Hopefully I put some words to
> others inchoate feelings.
>
> One request: Drag in fewer dead mice, please. I
> can tolerate them reasonably well if I have enough
> time to sort of forget the last one.
Nobody forces you to read exchanges with shameless lying missionaries, so dont. Problem solved!

I don't read them, but they cause a disturbance in The Force.

I understand everybody has different goals in critiques of the Church. It seems a goal of yours could be to offer the sorts of criticisms that can be taken seriously, even by honest minded members.