"It's good to see someone give it back to them."
https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2140851,2141109#msg-2141109

We're getting it and in my opinion much of it isn't very beneficial for recovering. At least not mine.

And my daughter is a missionary. I don't mind her being challenged but verbally assaulted, um, No!

If his or yours and your 30's methods is full frontal attach what is sad is how you and him will never reach your intended victims - the leaders.

Using terms like "whistleblower" and "Socrates" are an insult to the intellect in my opinion. And bloviating on RfM about those leaders and shills leading my family along with them while completely ok in my book for people attempting recovery but this looks like something beyond that, literally well beyond this stage of recovery.

We all know the pattern from school. Some poor kid is tormented for years. When she grows older, she doesn't retaliate against those who bullied her but instead bullies younger and weaker children. That is not "recovery" in any form but rather the personally cathartic expression of rage at the expense of the next generation of innocents.

Those who attack missionaries, and those who defend the attackers, have on multiple occasions stated that they are indulging their sense of grievance. It is the elementary school pattern all over again. Rather than assailing the church leaders who harmed them (and all of us), the attackers choose surrogates: naive, well-intentioned, deluded teenagers.

Such second-generation bullying does not weaken the church. If we take the bullies' (unrealistically) optimistic claims at face value, perhaps 10% of the teenagers will react by leaving the church. Meanwhile the attacks confirm the expectations of persecution inculcated by the church and push a much higher percentage of the teenagers further into Mormonism's clutches. On balance, the church gains.

That one of the purposes of the missionary program is to subject the teenagers to abuse from Mormonism's enemies in order to make them more committed to the religion doesn't seem to register--or rather doesn't matter because the underlying motive is not to weaken the church but to gratify one's own sense of victimhood. A selfish desire for revenge trumps a more strategic effort to undermine the church and free its victims.

That is unfortunate.

"Those who attack missionaries, and those who defend the attackers, have on multiple occasions stated that they are indulging their sense of grievance. It is the elementary school pattern all over again. Rather than assailing the church leaders who harmed them (and all of us), the attackers choose surrogates: naive, well-intentioned, deluded teenagers."

Not me. When I talk to missionaries, I am trying to get a spark of insight within them, trying to get them to think for themselves, trying to help them avoid what I endured. These young adults are not stupid. I know, because I was a missionary for 2 years in Europe.

Did you serve a mission Mrs. Lot?

Absolutely not, I have been happily married for over 30 years, many beautiful daughters and granddaughters, and I love my elderly mother very much. In fact, I am having lunch w/ her this afternoon. I am not a bully either.

The LDS church doesn't have trouble with women, either. They tell us that all the time.

And like you, they don't like uppity relief society presidents.

Go figure.

yeah uppity...that's it. Most people our off-put by uppity tones, arrogance, etc. I am not the only one who has mentioned that to you. Your just not a very nice person.

Your Mormon is showing.

have a hard on for LW, especially when she's like, "Naw - that's not the Socratic Method" (I know that wasn't directed towards you.)

When LW's corrects a factual mistake, and I mean, her brain power blows me away, there is a subset of (presumably) men on this board, of which I count you a member, that gets all twitchy and focuses on the MRS. and not the content.

Biblical Lot's Wife doesn't have a recorded name, but she had to take just one last look at her home before it was destroyed. And BOOM! Turned into a salt lick.

Hey, LW: Change your name to Salt Lick or something.

Hey, I already attract unwanted bovine attention!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/03/2018 06:23PM by Lot's Wife.

How about Salted Carmel Cupcake lick?

I am befuddled!

Yes I did, Mr. Bill, although I never served in such an august position as high priest. But what does that have to do with the subject at hand?

It seems to me that you are trying to restate as sincere dialogue with missionaries what you previously described as "it's good to see someone give it back to them," a phrase that both indicates pleasure in hurting missionaries and a curious ignorance of the fact that those missionaries are not the church leaders you hurt you.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/03/2018 02:38PM by Lot's Wife.

Maybe if they'd descended...

Subject at hand? The topic is missionaries. I was only curious. You may not have been a High Priest, but I bet you were a Relief Society President.

See? I KNEW you would pull the RSP canard out of your hat! You are nothing if not predictable.

May I suggest you reread the OP? The topic is abusing missionaries. It is not whether Lot's Wife served a mission, which is irrelevant.

Or the RSP thing. I don't know why that is a thing?

Mr. Bill has accused me of being a relief society president on at least four occasions because, like those august women, I am uppity.* Koriwhore has used that epithet at least twice as well.

Those descriptions usually get deleted by the admins, probably because they seem barbarically sexist. But I don't care. If people want to reveal their character in such ways, I say leave it up.



*When it comes to uppitiness, or uppitude, or uppidity, I cannot compete with our Beth. In the intellectual kitchen of life, she wields a samurai sword. Bitch'll cut ya.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/03/2018 02:54PM by Lot's Wife.

Maybe if she played dumb and used her keep sweet voice, Mr. Bill et al wouldn't act like they have their backs against the wall.

Maybe if LW used a non-cis screen name or posted as a man, Mr. Bill et al would be like, "Oh. That's a good point."

But no.

More often than not, some dude mentions LW's gender when they get pissed by her deft use of logic or when they don't like her unapologetic tone.

She's too aggressive, blah blah.

She's actually kick ass.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/03/2018 02:56PM by Beth.

"If his or yours and your 30's methods is full frontal attach what is sad is how you and him will never reach your intended victims - the leaders."

This has always been one of my objections to trolling the missionaries. Yes, they may be "official" representatives of the church, but they are by no means the one's calling the shots. They are merely following a playbook thrust upon them by the leaders, and have very little latitude to stray from it, particularly when they have to consider what their companion will do if they do.

So, unless an individual missionary repeatedly crosses one my clearly-defined boundaries, I feel no need to make their time as an indentured servant any worse than it already is. I'm not the one who created the need for their individual shelves, and I'm not going to be the one to break it if it works for them.

However, a number of missionaries have contacted me after their missions (mostly about college and career choices), and one has actually asked me to recommend resources the leaders want him to avoid. That wouldn't have happened if there weren't a level of mutual trust and respect.

Well, when I was a missionary, I had non-members confront me all the time with "anti-Mormon topics." I remember that it caused me to take a step back and think. If you mean by "full frontal attack" the act of pointing out to missionaries the dark unmentioned secrets that they didn't teach them in seminary, I guess yeah we'll have to agree to disagree - and that's okay for us to have differing opinions on the matter Elder Berry. I guess you could also say that when they knock on my door, I don't tell them my history - it's dishonest - I guess well have to agree to disagree.

I have missionaries come to my door at least once a month, and I don't hold back in enlightening them about the their own Mormon history. I wish someone would have enlightened me more back then, and it would have saved me 20 year more in a cult. I remember being told by a guy one time on my mission after knocking on his door, "you guys are indoctrinated..you have been since birth, your BOM does contain any substantiated evidence whatsoever, and your black companion - your leaders were very racist." He proceeded to give us a bunch of examples. According to you, that type of dialogue is a full frontal assault, and if so, I certainly respect your opinion.

I always read your post EB, and have enjoyed your comments over the yeas as I as lurking. I don't take this calling me out by name on this board as an insult or direct assault to me because I think you are a good person.

On my lunch hour...probably have some misspells. Oh well.

Bill Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, when I was a missionary, I had non-members
> confront me all the time with "anti-Mormon
> topics." I remember that it caused me to take a
> step back and think. If you mean by "full frontal
> attack" the act of pointing out to missionaries
> the dark unmentioned secrets that they didn't
> teach them in seminary, I guess yeah we'll have to
> agree to disagree - and that's okay for us to have
> differing opinions on the matter Elder Berry.

I welcomed differing opinions on my mission. The problem was I could only teach the poor and they accepted my version of Mormon history not knowing there was anything else. There was actually a group on one of the more remote islands who called themselves "Mormones" and had multiple wives using Book of Mormons I think as their holy book.

I ran into a few expats and they knew about Smith polygamy but not in detail. They claimed he married women whilst he was alive. I knew better cause my family told me so. Little did I know. I reviewed our genealogy in my 30s and found out those people were right and I was wrong but I wasn't going to accept information from an expat and anti-Mormon.

> I remember being told by a guy one time on my
> mission after knocking on his door, "you guys are
> indoctrinated..you have been since birth, your BOM
> does contain any substantiated evidence
> whatsoever, and your black companion - your
> leaders were very racist." He proceeded to give us
> a bunch of examples. According to you, that type
> of dialogue is a full frontal assault, and if so,
> I certainly respect your opinion.

I appreciate your respecting my opinion. I just don't think most Mormons I know including a wife and kids would do anything more than batten down their Mormon Jaredite barge hatches with that approach.

> I always read your post EB, and have enjoyed your
> comments over the yeas as I as lurking. I don't
> take this calling me out by name on this board as
> an insult or direct assault to me because I think
> you are a good person.

I'm glad you didn't. I'm guilty of giving you the same treatment as I believe Aaron did in simply entitling a thread "koriwhore." In my muddled mind it seemed appropriate but if it was offensive I apologize. I've engaged you but I try to avoid engaging Kori because it is ill-advised in my self assessing of my activities here.

> On my lunch hour...probably have some misspells.
> Oh well.

I wrote "attach" and meant "attack."

oh your fine EB...I have very thick skin. Gotta run guy, my mom and dad's a'waiting for me. She loves the Crackerbarrel. Take it easy EB.

"I just don't think most Mormons I know including a wife and kids would do anything more than batten down their Mormon Jaredite barge hatches with that approach."

I tried telling my wife about Mormon history, but I soon learned that the only impact it had was to strengthen her determination to prove that me wrong. She also said that I was being influenced by "The Adversary", and was very hurt that I would put more faith in "anti-Mormon crap" than her. In her mind, "the only way to get truth about a Ford is to ask a Ford dealer; a Chevy dealer only knows about Chevy's." Never occurred to her that the Mormon church might have a vested interest in controlling the narrative.

The only times we've had a civil discussion about Mormonism, and religion in general, was when she approached me with a genuine desire to know my opinion. The less I push, the more curious she is about what I've learned.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/03/2018 04:00PM by GregS.

GregS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The only times we've had a civil discussion about
> Mormonism, and religion in general, was when she
> approached me with a genuine desire to know my
> opinion. The less I push, the more curious she is
> about what I've learned.

Ditto. I've been asking them for year to read their own "Essays." They say they will get around to it. They have all the information. I've told them that. I just want them to see their church spin it and see how untenable that position is.

My wife tried reading a couple of the Essays, but couldn't finish either one because they made her physically ill. She said they looked like they were about to take an anti-Mormon turn, and she didn't want to have her fears confirmed.

It is maddening that she is so close to seeing the church for what it is, but she just can't bring herself to acknowledge it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/03/2018 03:17PM by GregS.

***Heavy Commiserating***

Greg,

The day will come. She already has doubts, and she'll reach the point where she wants to know the truth. The day will come more quickly because you give her love and safety and respect.

You should take pride in what you are doing.

She does see the church for what it is. People who are in denial know what they are in denial about. People who are simply oblivious aren't in denial.

Brother Of Jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> People who
> are in denial know what they are in denial about.

My people are in denial. It is a big river I cross regularly.

> People who are simply oblivious aren't in denial.

Considering sources there are many Mormons who aren't in denial because of their scrutiny of sources. Unfortunately, regardless of the source "The Essays" prove nowadays to be TBM you have to be in denial.

Nice response Elder Berry.

I’ve enjoyed you over time too. I dig seeing you take Bill’s words at face value and respond accordingly.

I wish I understood sarcasm.


The thing is, I agree that people need to be called on their shit. I think it is very helpful for a trusted somebody to help their friends.

What you are doing isn't any of that because the people you are "teaching" don't trust you or value your opinion.

But more than any of that it is that you are want to attack instead of discuss. I've noticed that there are two things that you attack. Gender for those who are not the same as you and intelligence for those who are the same as you. It is insulting and infuriating.

That is all.

I was confronted plenty with anti Mormon tactics. Didn't work. But then this was the 80s and the tactics were mostly whackier born again stuff and satanism accusatiins.

It was Mormonism itself that simply became untenable from its own open doctrines in my case.

I was the one who posted about "bullying bloviating baloney" that Bill responded to. I was going to comment on his response, but the thread. closed. As it turns out, here's my chance, but Lot's Wife nailed what I would have said if I were considerably more articulate than I actually am.

I am distressed at how often I see advice that boils down to "do to them what they did to us." One case in particular I remember was when someone was planning to visit a TBM at work (she worked in retail) and embarrass her in front of her co-workers. I don't remember the details, though I do recall that it wasn't a tit-for-tat visit, it was purely designed to embarrass the person.

I said that RFM posters correctly view this as appalling when Mormons pulled that kind of crap, and it is a completely unreasonable violation of boundaries. If they shouldn't be doing it, neither should we.

I got jumped on for saying that, leaving me gobsmacked, to steal a Brit expression.

Same thing applies here. If Mormon bullying bloviating baloney is despicable, it is also despicable if we do it.


As for whether Bill has a problem with uppity women - He did make the following comment on the Jordan Peterson thread a few months ago: "He speaks the truth,Pay attention"

Mr Peterson, for those not familiar, is the current custodian of Patriarchy, adding a patina of academic respectability to that trope.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html

>>And my daughter is a missionary. I don't mind her being challenged but verbally assaulted, um, No!

Unless I missed something, I've never seen Kori swearing at a missionary, calling a missionary names, calling a missionary stupid for believing what they believe, etc. That's what I would consider a verbal assault.

The way that Kori vigorously discusses his ideas with the missionaries may or may not work (I tend to believe it won't,) but I would consider what he is doing with them "being challenged" rather than verbal assault.

There are all kinds of missionaries. Some are very laid back and some are themselves rather aggressive. Didn't we just have a report a few weeks back of missionaries who were not terribly keen on leaving a private property when asked to do so? And who were verbally dismissive of the property owner?

I remember that thread.

The missionaries refused to leave until they heard a 911 call. What confused me was the number of folks that went off on the poster of that thread. Saying the poster should have hidden in his house or not called police etc.

I don't remember if I chimed in but there are times Missionaries need to be put in their place. Myself I had one show up at my door 20 years ago demanding in an angry tone to know what sins I was committing that were causing me to not attend church. I simply closed the door on him. If he had escalated to door pounding and screaming as I've seen other church folks do I'd have called the cops on him.

15 or more years ago, I had a set of Elders that had arrived at my doorstep to save me, Brother Goop from my evil apostasy. I told them that I didn't want to talk to them and as I began to close the door, he shoved his foot into my threshold so I couldn't close it without hurting him. I admit it. I became angry with him. So I pushed his foot out and he didn't like it.

He began to yell through the door and this time I got my front door closed. He stood at my front door hollering for several minutes. And the bastard, having lost his temper and the war with Brother Goop kicked my door as a parting shot. If I would have had a cell phone that recorded video, then the entire melee would have been recorded for posterity.

For the record, I served as a mish and I always knew well enough not to engage in bible-bashing or personal attacks.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/08/2018 06:05PM by messygoop.

He deserved to have his foot broke.

I don't think anyone here endorses treating missionaries with respect who have none for you.

I agree.

That sounds illegal as well as aggressive. I'd have called the cops.

You're lucky bears didn't come out of the woods to devour you!!!

I wonder if he considered 'shake the dust from his heels'? It's an awesome power and I'm ashamed to say that sometimes I'd go looking for trouble since I was so well armed.

> You're lucky bears didn't come out of the woods to
> devour you!!!


The night is young.

The voice of reason has spoken.

The only person here who could, imo, have an advice column. She’s always measured and thoughtful. (I’ve always been a fan - including years ago under my prior name).

Take this to the bank Koriwhore and carry on.

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The way that Kori vigorously discusses his ideas
> with the missionaries may or may not work (I tend
> to believe it won't,) but I would consider what he
> is doing with them "being challenged" rather than
> verbal assault.

You are correct. I don't remember anything he wrote where he was explicitly verbally abusive.

I wish his girlfriend would have recorded this exchange.

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2120951,2120951#msg-2120951

> There are all kinds of missionaries. Some are very
> laid back and some are themselves rather
> aggressive. Didn't we just have a report a few
> weeks back of missionaries who were not terribly
> keen on leaving a private property when asked to
> do so? And who were verbally dismissive of the
> property owner?

All kinds of people, so what is your point? Hose them down? That might apply. Are we arguing here?

Why do I support Koriwhore?

I support people and encourage people in life. When I see somebody with some fire and passion and Drive - I like to stand behind them with a big smile and a fist in the air and say go get it.

There’s 1000 different ways to live. And we’re all learning on our individual journeys. But before I start correcting and reprimanding and redirecting and preaching and teaching and admonishing, I like to get behind somebody.

jay Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When I see somebody with some fire and passion and
> Drive - I like to stand behind them with a big
> smile and a fist in the air and say go get it.


(jay, I know it's practically a cliche, and a bad one, but I'm gonna make Godwin right again anyway...)

Is that what the folks who thought Hitler had fire and passion and drive did, stand behind him with a big smile and a fist (ok, an outstretched palm) in the air and say go get it?

Or does it matter what their fire and passion and drive are about as much at it matters that they have those things?

It matters to me. I won't smile and stick my fist in the air for people doing things I think are "bad." I will for lots of other people, though.

<< I won't smile and stick my fist in the air for people doing things I think are "bad." >>

I’m a nazi?

“Bad”? That could be pretty broad. My mom thought long hair was bad.

I can and do support and encourage people who make choices opposite of the choices I make, who live their lives in a different way, who differ politically, who enjoy different art, who have wildly different personalities.

Why? For one, I’m wrong a lot. My kid could decide to preach and I’d sit in the front row every Sunday.

I’m deluded, misguided, stupid, opinionated and have lived a life of countless mistakes.

It’s easy to deconstruct another person’s life. I get a rush saying to someone “I love the way you live your life.”

Hie didn't call you a Nazi. Two things or ideas can be mentioned without implying they are equivalent.

Hie wasn't calling you a Nazi. He was pointing out a problem with trying to live life as someone else's pep-squad. Some of the folks with the fire, drive, passion, whatever you want to call it, are trying to get money or power. And one of the reasons they get power is because of enough cheerleaders praising their confidence instead of asking questions.

Do YOU agree with what a charismatic poster does? If you don't, call them out on it. Praising someone no matter what is for bootlicks.

Koriwhore is a bootlick? Or an attacker? LOL

If my comment a few posts above I talked about supporting Koriwhore who is being critisized here for his tactics in dealing with Mormons and Mormonism.

Hie, Who enjoys talking about logical fallacies, is just using a typical tactic to try to suck the meaning out of something - make it an absolute. So if I support people, then I support everything good and bad and indifferent. You’re jumping on that bandwagon. I support people so I’m going to support a charismatic poster of prophet?

So, to repeat, it’s easy to criticize. Just like it’s easy to deconstruct a post and say, well I can’t support bad things like Adolf Hitler. But I think hie and you are both smart enough to understand that there’s a difference between supporting Adolf Hitler and supporting things that are not necessarily a perfect reflection of yourself.

Now, I haven’t had to struggle with Mormonism, because when I was approached I laughed. But I’ve been around a lot of people who have struggled with it, so when I see somebody fighting back against what I do think is a destructive force – Mormonism - I love it.

And if the person doesn’t fightback my way, do I need to instruct them on the proper technique? It’s my own observation, and possibly incorrect observation, that people, parents and friends are often wanting to reach out and change the way people around them act and live.

I think this little microcosm shows how hard it is for people to support something that isn’t their own way of being. That’s what Mormonism has in common with every day life. It’s not just Mormon parents who don’t give their kids the room to be a different person. It’s parents in general. And it’s not just Mormons who are on unaccepting of people who think and act differently, it’s people in general.

That’s why I’m so fascinated by people who have been trapped in the Mormon cult. They’ve lived in a environment where the way they thought about life was rejected by family and friends. Those family members – those Mormon family members and friends – just couldn’t bring themselves to say to the non-Mormons “I love how you live your life.”

So, this forum is a nice little petri dish to look at that aspect of human nature: how people deal with living in an environment where who they are was rejected by family.

So, I do look for ways to support people that think feel and act differently than me. Not Adolf Hitler supporters. You don’t have to take that concept to its extreme. But just look at people in your life like your children. How do you deal with it when they don’t choose what you would choose?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/07/2018 09:12AM by jay.

jay Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hie, Who enjoys talking about logical fallacies,
> is just using a typical tactic to try to suck the
> meaning out of something - make it an absolute.

Since my post was specifically about NOT being absolutist, but that context and motivation matter, you clearly missed the point entirely. Shame.

> So
> if I support people, then I support everything
> good and bad and indifferent. Your jumping on that
> bandwagon. I’m support people so I’m going to
> support a charismatic poster of prophet?

Nobody said anything of the sort. I certainly didn't.
I simply pointed out that what people have drive and fire FOR matters. That supporting people just because they have drive and fire -- as you said you did -- could be a big problem, because they could have drive and fire for really nasty things.
A point you clearly missed.

> So, to repeat, it’s easy to criticize. Just
> like it’s easy to deconstruct a post and say,
> well I can’t support bad things like Adolf
> Hitler. But I think hie and you are both smart
> enough to understand that there’s a difference
> between supporting Adolf Hitler and supporting
> things that are not necessarily a perfect
> reflection of yourself.

And I would hope that you are "smart enough" to figure out the point of my post, now that it's been fully explained to you.

> Now, I haven’t had to struggle with Mormonism,
> because when I was approached I laughed. But
> I’ve been around a lot of people who have
> struggled with it, so when I see somebody fighting
> back against what I do think is a destructive
> force – Mormonism - I love it.

All of us here "fight against mormonism." In our own ways. The criticism of koriwhore isn't for fighting against mormonism -- it's for being nasty to ignorant kids as a tactic in that fight. He is, of course, free to keep doing so...and those of us who find his tactic problematic are free to criticize it. And your apparently uncritical support of it.

> So, I do look for ways to support people that
> think feel and act differently than me. Not Adolf
> Hitler supporters. You don’t have to take that
> concept to its extreme. But just look at people in
> your life like your children. How do you deal with
> it when they don’t choose what you would choose?

I taught my kids to think things through critically, use facts and logic, and make their own decisions. They choose all sorts of things that I wouldn't choose. And I fully support them.

I wouldn't support them if one of their choices was to bully other people, though. I'd let them know why I didn't like that choice, and point out why it's harmful to others and harmful to them. Support is great -- uncritical support not so much.

Which was the whole point.

I think your posts here at this form demonstrate you’re a person who is willing to acknowledge when he’s wrong, who concedes when somebody makes a good argument, and who is aware that his perspective and reasoning ability has its limitations and that he’s often wrong.

I think we share those traits.

For me, that allows For the type of acceptance of different points of view that I am encouraging, with the obvious limitations pointed out by you and others. Is there a disagreement?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/07/2018 09:46AM by jay.

When you put it that way...

Nope ;)

jay Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Koriwhore is a bootlick? Or an attacker? LOL
>

Guy, if I was calling Koriwhore a bootlick, I would have called him that in a reply to him. Instead, it was in a reply to you. Do I need to clarify more?

My beef with Koriwhore's methods are that he goes after the missionaries, not the leaders. The mishies are kids who are expected to be attacked for being Mormon, so Koriwhore's methods only lead to a backfire effect (instead of convincing the mishies to look into the truth behind the Morg, the mishies see the attacks as proof that they're right). I would rather find ways to rob Mormon leaders of their power over me (resigning and not paying tithing is a good start).

P.S.
We are not a petri dish of human behavior. We are people.

ookami Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> P.S.
> We are not a petri dish of human behavior. We are
> people.

I agree. And tit-for-tat is fair game in my book. If missionaries are aggressive and seeking you out respond in kind. Prowling for them to confront them with history isn't all that good in my book.

After decades and decades of history it is still a terrible organization. That needs to be highlighted to the young and old Mormons but I don't think confronting them vigorously with it is very effective and it isn't tit-for-tat. Trolling missionaries might be fun but it isn't a game in my book.

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ookami Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > P.S.
> > We are not a petri dish of human behavior. We
> are
> > people.
>
> I agree. And tit-for-tat is fair game in my book.
> If missionaries are aggressive and seeking you out
> respond in kind. Prowling for them to confront
> them with history isn't all that good in my book.
>
> After decades and decades of history it is still a
> terrible organization. That needs to be
> highlighted to the young and old Mormons but I
> don't think confronting them vigorously with it is
> very effective and it isn't tit-for-tat. Trolling
> missionaries might be fun but it isn't a game in
> my book.
#1. It's not trolling missionaries, when they are the ones targeting me with ads promising to give "real answers" to "real questions" I am just asking real questions, and they lie through their teeth every time to excuse sexual abuse and discrimination against minorities.
#2. I agree, its not a game. Its an attempt to provide others with a line of questioning that forces cult recruiters to either
A. Think about their delusional, immoral beliefs to provide real answers or
B. Lie through their teeth and provide false statements in order to defend them.

They choose B. 100% of the time, which makes it easy to disprove their claim that they have any kind of "real answers" to any real questions.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> #1. It's not trolling missionaries, when they are
> the ones targeting me with ads promising to give
> "real answers" to "real questions" I am just
> asking real questions, and they lie through their
> teeth every time to excuse sexual abuse and
> discrimination against minorities.

So you clicked because The Mormons promised you real answers to your questions? Really?

> #2. I agree, its not a game. Its an attempt to
> provide others with a line of questioning that
> forces cult recruiters to either
> A. Think about their delusional, immoral beliefs
> to provide real answers or
> B. Lie through their teeth and provide false
> statements in order to defend them.

You realize they are volunteers reading scripted responses?

> They choose B. 100% of the time, which makes it
> easy to disprove their claim that they have any
> kind of "real answers" to any real questions.

I thought you were claiming a better success rate.

And. It's also not "lying" if they believe in the LDS doctrine. They are mistaken, not lying. Big difference.

There is no way they are choosing to defend rape or similar crimes. That mindset comes across as so outrageous it's not going to attract many to hear what else you want to say. So off that even RfMers with serious dislike of Mormonism can't support it.

A tiny example of utter cluelessness, which is an alternative explanation for why people defend their beliefs, (being clueless may be regrettable but it is not in any way equal to defending rape and other abuse): When I was a new Mormon visiting SLC I went to the museum and saw the photos of BY and all his wives. I also visited the Lion House (is that the right name and was it his dwelling? - it's yrs ago and I forget such details now), again with the photos. It never once, ever, at all, occurred to me that BY (1) was married to all the wives simultaneously; (2) had a sexual relationship with all or some or more than one of them.

I know. Call me clueless. Or worse. But I totally bit on their explanation that BY was "saving the widows". I even thought it was nice of him to look after them like that. I had never heard of Mormon polygamy, in the past or present day. It never once occurred to me that he would have more than one "wife". And I didn't know much about JS either. Pretty much all I know about it now I learned here at RfM, especially what goes on in the present day (thanks to Cheryl and others with knowledge of it).

But I was IN NO WAY defending rape, abuse, illegal activity, etc. Goes without saying, you'd think.

Every one of the missionaries I knew (all of them in this entire zone and beyond) did what they had been taught to do by parents and church officials, what they were expected to do, as a rite of passage. They followed the program. Their own preferences, goals, plans were subsumed by the interests of the church, just as always throughout their lives so far. I met exactly one missionary who I knew for sure absolutely believed the Mormon doctrine. Many of the rest were there to please parents, so as not to rock the boat, to fulfil their expected role or reasons like that, with belief or semi-belief far down on the list. Or that was my impression. And I had given it a lot of thought and I observed them and talked to them and fed them and knew them.

Whatever criticism someone wants to level at a teenager or only just young adult, OK. But try to keep in perspective who it is that (1) formulated the doctrines of the church; (2) upholds LDS practices; (3) exerts unholy pressure on young folks to conform; (4) is really in a position to know that church reality is different from what they preach.

Maybe developing a wider perspective will allow for some acceptance that the young missionaries are NOT choosing on purpose to follow, condone, emulate a rapist. (If that is the accepted term even for JS, BY et al? Or current leaders?) For an extreme corollary, which I may soon regret even thinking of, never mind mentioning - but here goes - I recently heard Spike Lee say that America was built on the basis of genocide (Natives) and slavery (Non-whites). "And that's just reality", he said. Ouch. Whether you agree with all or part of his statement, if it is even slightly accurate, if stark, is it accurate to say that all Americans are guilty of racism, enslavement and murder? Up to today? How much responsibility does an individual bear for what others do or have done? How much for what society around them does or has done?

For the record, I abhor what happened in my country to the First Nations peoples (residential schools that separated families, often permanently, and robbed children of family support and love and took away their language and culture; "reservations" that isolated people after taking their land, etc). That's just one example of extreme injustice. I wasn't alive then. I didn't do it. I didn't know about it in my youth. I can't make it right.

But it's not my fault. Not my responsibility. Would it make any sense for one of the injured parties to seek retribution against me personally? Not so much.

I do wish that missionaries would think about things. I expect that many will. After their missions. When they can get even slightly off the Mormon Treadmill that took them there in the first place. They may not get a chance until into middle adulthood. I can understand that. Excuse it. Accept it.

If I were going to try to change anything I would likely direct my efforts at church leaders or at least local reps.

I'm not saying there's nothing to be angry or upset or disappointed about. Just that I get what others are saying about choosing an action or solution that is likely to be effective. If that is your goal.

The bottom line, as I see it, is that most who are responding to this topic are merely trying to say that it's not a mindset or the tactics that are likely to motivate a Mormon, especially one on a mission, to shed their garmies and run screaming off into the sunset as far away from Moroni and pals as possible.

Rather, a reasoned exchange may be a better starting point to shed a little light.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/08/2018 04:05PM by Nightingale.

It is not the missionaries targeting you with ads, but the church, in conjunction with Big Data. The missionaries you chat with have been assigned to the chatrooms by church leaders to field questions from anybody who voluntarily chooses to log in to the chatroom. Nobody is forcing you to do anything.

Besides, you are making yourself a target of online ads with your own online obsession of the church. My own obsessions are reflected in the ads that are pushed to me. And despite my interest in Mormonism, I have yet to see any of the ads that have you so incensed. The difference is no doubt due to the different sites we seek out of our own accord.