Why would anyone respect dead dunking? It's nothing but self important wasted effort which officially denegrates the lives of the dead. Respect it? No. Why should I?

Respect Joe Smith as a mouthpiece for God? I don't think so.

Respect belief in angels who use swords to force a man to cheat on his wife? No.

Respect three separate degrees of glory in heaven where only the highest level allows saints see their loved ones? And everyone else is cast out of the family and also loses their genitals? That's stupid.

Respect magical underwear with holy symbols sitched on them? How silly!

Respect that a few mormons are the only officially "worthy" humans on earth? Respect that rest of the mormons and all nonmormons are UNWorthy? Absolutely won't respect that idea.

Respect institutionalized racism, sexism, and homophobia? Good grief, no!

I think the only respect worth having needs to be well earned and mormon beliefs earn little if any respect.

I do, however, respect everyone's right to have dumb opinions and join flawed organizations. In turn they need to respect my right not to join their church. They don't have to respect whatever I believe. They only have to accept that I do have a right to choose what I believe just as they do.

Mormons are confused. They think that everyone owes respect to their beliefs. No, that isn't realistic. Everyone only owes them the latitude to believe whatever they want to believe.

We all have rights to think whatever we want to think. But we must not act on our beliefs doing so would hurts anyone or limit their rights.

It isn't possible to censor or control what anyone thinks. We can only speak out or complain about their actions, not their thoughts.

In the real world we have to rub shoulders with all kinds of people so we try to be tactful and not insult them in spite of not respecting their beliefs. We can respect people and their rights even though we don't respect their underwear.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/11/2012 07:39PM by Cheryl.

I agree! People will let a lot of religious claptrap go by without challenging it, even if it is hurtful to others. Yet they will correct them on denying the holocaust, for example, or even word pronunciations. I also agree that not respecting another's views does not have to be done as a put down to them, i.e., disrespectfully.

Respect implies some sort of admiration, and none of the things you mentioned deserve any admiration. Respectful, however might have a place when trying to help the helpless to understand the utter bull sh*t of their beliefs.

to any belief anyone wants to have.

... it has nothing to do with this particular topic.

As an active RFM participant since 1998, I have never read a single post that suggests cult members should have no "right" to believe what they want to believe.

On the other hand, I've read more posts than I can count that suggest cult members should be able to express and practice their goofy beliefs without debate, challenge or ridicule.

I often wonder if those who promulgate the latter know where they are.

To my way of thinkin', RFM is likened unto a crucible in that participants must burn away irrelevancies until all that is left is a pure product, the truth, for all time. The individual "right" to hold beliefs, for example, is unquestioned, thus rendering it "irrelevant" to these types of discussions. So why does it keep coming up?

One of the best ways to screw-up a given investigation is to introduce bogus evidence. One of the best ways to screw-up a given discussion is to introduce irrelevancies. I understand that some RFM participants have a hard time dealing with certain "truths" concerning the cult -- like the fact that it is a cult -- because they are still closely connected to cult followers and don't want to think of them as such. Do I have to respect that? Nope. Do I have to be respectful toward those posters and their wishes? Not at all. I have no respect for anyone who cries foul when what warrants no respect gets no respect. Such is my right and I will exercise it.

I think we all agree on the irrelevant (at least to this conversation) notion that folks have the right to believe whatever they want to believe. Hopefully, we can now move-on to the more relevant notion that folks do not have the right to express and practice their goofy beliefs without debate, challenge or ridicule.

If one craves attention, one can start a thread and hope for the best. I respect that. What I don't respect is an attempted hi-jack of a thread to divert attention away from the cult or to make the thread all about the hi-jacker.

'Nuff said.

Timothy

I guess some folkes think it sounds high-minded to brag about "respecting beliefs" when what they mean is that they want us to shut up about their present or former cult's fool ideas.

That isn't going to happen at a "Recovery from Mormonism" discussion forum.

I suspect that it is a stealth way to try to interject the idea that because people have the right to believe total BS that we need to respect BS, which simply is not true.

In terms of rights, what we are discussing is not if the right is to be respected, what we are discussing is do we need to respect HOW a right is exercised.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/2012 04:41PM by MJ.

And I guess you would respect people differently in different countries because different countries allow different rights, eh?

Oh, yeah, and do you RESPECT the PEOPLE that protest a funerals just because they have th RIGHT?

... who are you addressing?

Timothy

Say a person has the right to believe anything they want says nothing about any particular individual, just as I said.

You are correct, Mormon beliefs deserve unrestrained ridicule. It's time to put on our gloves and fight for sanity. Our planet and our civilization depend on it.

I so agree Cheryl. And when people say "You must be respectful of all beliefs" I just cringe. No, I don't. I can in a tactful way let people know I am not interested in their beliefs and then I want to be left alone. No way must I say to a believer of any group...."I disagree with what you believe but I respect you." For me it is more of a tolerant thing. For instance, Mormonism is there and I know people who are Mormon and I must tolerate their existence in the workplace and in the neighborhood as long as they do no harm to me physically, but I will never say I respect them.

These talking heads on TV know nothing about Mormonism.... they just say..."They seem like nice people. I have met many fine Mormons." So what? Get to know their belief system and see how you like that???? They only skim the surface of the Mormon person they just met. They care nothing of how they hurt family after family with their converting of their children, and they care nothing of the rituals they know nothing about where they have their members pledge all to the organization. And they know nothing about forced tithing so they can be called worthy. BUT...I have met many nice Mormons. Again....so what? TAlking heads needs to educate themselves.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/11/2012 08:15PM by honestone.

Oh, and I am very anxious to see if in So. Carolina any of the differences between Mormons and Christians is discussed. If someone who is running says they have great respect for Mormons they won't get my vote.

I respect their right to worship as they choose and nothing more. I do not have to respect their actual beliefs.

I have never seen anyone on this board disrespect a persons's right to believe.

I am however, appalled at those who do not have the backbone to challenge, to question, to blame, and to hold accountable for actions that clearly damage others and take away other's rights. I am specifically talking about the mormons because that's why we're all here.

My rights have been taken away by them, my psyche was damaged and my family relationships are at the very best semi-phony. I have read countless devastation on this board that leaves me angry, and blaming and disgusted.

I don't respect the mormons, I do blame them and I do hold them accountable for their actions. I will ridicule them. AND, I am not going to add any disclaimers to that. I will not say "in my opinion" or "in my view" or "in my experience" or "this is what works for me, it may not for you".

I mean what I say. I have no need to pretend that I am in some cozy little cocoon where the latest self help book has solved all my problems. This is where the gritty part of healing happens. This is RFM.

I think you (we) can have our opinions, and certainly discuss them with each other. BUT, "respecting" someone's beliefs does not imply that you admire the belief. It means that you are an adult who will try to be civil and courteous. IMO.

"...Hopefully, we can now move-on to the more relevant notion that folks do not have the right to express and practice their goofy beliefs without debate, challenge or ridicule."

I've got no problems with debate and chanllenge, I'm just not sure about ridicule. It depends of the situation, your definition of ridicule, and so on.
What I mean is it is not always a good thing to use ridicule and one should judge the situation before going for the "ridicule".
When I was still an impressionable and sensitive young woman, my dad, who had left the church by then (ironically, he's the one who introduced it in our home and family to begin with), ridiculed my 'mormon' beliefs in a mean-spirited way and it ended-up doing more harm than anything else. It was counterproductive.
I had to come to the discovery of the falshood on my time and in my way.

Many mormon beliefs are ridiculous and are therefore open to ridicule.

Robert Goddard was often ridiculed in the press because of his seemingly outlandish proposals. Turned out that the guy knew what he was talking about.

The mormon cult is often ridiculed round these parts. As it turns out, RFM was designed as a safe harbor for doing so. Mormons don't know what they are talking about. I see no need to placate them here or anywhere for that reason.

Had your dad been more "respectful" would you have listened?

Either way, you still had to come to the discovery of the falshood on your time and in your way.

Timothy



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/2012 01:56PM by Timothy.

That has no connection with RfMers using a mocking tone on this forum as a way of working through their issues and recovering from a destructive cult.

I also think it's very understandable if exmos in their homes mock mormon trespassers who show up to mock exmos and preach mormonism in spite of having been told they are not welcome.

Mormons who object to being mocked need to avoid foisting their beliefs on those who say they are not interested.

I can identify with the reluctance to 'ridicule' as that is how I was socialized by family and religion of various stripes. Also, in my work in the medical and legal fields, as well as in volunteer work in various areas, tolerance, acceptance and a non-judgemental attitude are mandatory and that approach gets to be a habit in all things.

I gradually moved from the fundamentalist end of the religious scale, in groups that teach there is only one way and they are it (JW, EV, Mormon, etc) to happily embracing ecumenism within religion and in secular areas too, which fits much better with my true self. Not long after joining the JWs in my teens I had questions about the narrow view that only a relative handful of humans would survive Armageddon to repopulate a perfected earth. It just didn't make sense to me that the vast majority of humankind somehow didn't know what I supposedly had found out, that the WatchTower Society was God's mouthpiece on earth and that if you weren't a JW you were not on God's side.

Between the comfort for me of embracing inclusiveness in all walks and this background (as well as being the most polite of polite Canadians!) I often cringe from anything that seems harsh to me, such as mocking, ridicule, or even relatively mild criticism. I worry that it hurts people's feelings and I don't want to be responsible for that. Or, OCD-like, I stress about it possibly not being exactly correct (such as generalizations or statements made in anger that may be exaggerations or otherwise inaccurate in some way).

But.

One: I can recognize, especially on this board, that people have a need to express themselves in any way that appeals to them or helps them (within the usual boundaries of course). I think that especially when the focus of the rant or whatever is directed at the church organization it doesn't hurt anybody. I actually enjoy a good rant as I get vicarious benefit from reading someone else's opinion or experience that mirrors my own that I may be unwilling or unable to express so deliciously myself.

And. The experiences related to Mormonism that some people have gone through would make a saint go on a good ol' rant. It is more natural to be angry than to shrug and accept it and by one's silence continue to polish up the church's image and give a pass to those whose attitudes, behaviours, actions or words blighted some part of one's life.

Two: It is tough to see life through a neutral framework. It often takes a jolt to get us to see things from a different perspective, which is often the best way we learn. We can leave Mormonism but may retain many attitudes and beliefs of which we're not even aware. We don't just magically change into a non-mo or become like a never-mo, most of us anyway. For me, at least, 'ridicule' is extreme enough to get through the unconscious bias. I find satire not only clever and amusing but instructive. Those on the other end of it may consider it ridicule as it mocks or challenges their cherished ideas. I see it as a way to make people think.

Among the most instructive type of challenges for me is when someone changes the text of one thing to demonstrate its similarity to another, which often reveals a pot/kettle situation. For example, many non-Mormons can opine that Mormon beliefs are stupid but can't see similarities with their own beliefs. You can take a rant of theirs against Mormonism and direct it towards their own dogma to make the point that they've got some thinking to do. They may not have ever considered this before. Satire is one way of prompting someone to look at things from another angle.

Three: As has been mentioned, it is valuable for exmos and others from similarly restrictive groups or families to learn how to formulate their own considered opinions and to express them robustly. This board is a good place to practice that.

So, one person's 'ridicule' is another person's valuable life lesson!

I don't worry at all about Mormons possibly stumbling across RfM and being offended by the opinions expressed here. If we had to post with restrictions in order to keep every possible reader happy, that would curtail the unique opportunity for posters to fully and honestly express themselves. RfM may as well shut up shop at that point. If I had to worry about the unseen hordes of lurkers and what they might think I would feel that I had to hold back, which isn't conducive to recovery, and how could I possibly know anyway what would enlighten or annoy an invisible, unknown presence?

Four: We all have different sensitivity meters so it would be impossible to judge and list what is 'offensive' or not. We've had this discussion many times here. I think it's fairly obvious when something is generally offensive or not, yet obviously we could never all agree on that, which makes it so very subjective as to be impossible to control. Fortunately, it seems that most posters thrive on the give-and-take and generally most mean well and are supportive of the reality that many people here are in genuine need of understanding, support, and the opportunity to be honest about how they feel and what they think and their changing beliefs.

I've learned a lot from others' satire type posts and have come to see the need many have to rail against the beast that hurt them. I don't see anything wrong in 'ridiculing' an organization that deserves to be seen as it really is. Facades should be peeled back so daylight can reveal dirty underbellies.

Those who prop up the facade deserve to be exposed and should have to answer for their actions - or inaction - as the case may be.

It's not a matter of manners or courtesy but of being honest about what is. Honesty gets my vote.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/2012 04:28PM by Nightingale.

Seriously, so much of comedic material boils down to ridicule. Political cartoons, late night comics, etc. I'll bet you laugh at a lot of stuff that is really ridicule.

... simply point out the absurdities of human behavior.

I agree that its not always the best medicine, but with mormons there is little choice.

Reason doesn't work.

Timothy

"...but with mormons there is little choice. Reason doesn't work."

Yes, you are right.

"I have a right to my own opinion."

"Like many other views that have at times enjoyed universal assent, however, it isn't true. You don't really have a right to your own opinions. And the idea that you do, besides being false, is forever being invoked when it would be irrelevant even if it were true" (Jamie Whyte, Crimes Against Logic, pg. 2)

Consequences choices have...

/Obi Wan voice off

I think you can respect other people's RIGHT to believe what they want however:

- You don't have to respect the belief itself. A lot of people believe weird things but that doesn't make those things respectable.

- You don't have to respect a person's perceived right to hurt another person with their beliefs. Like people who believe it's OK to protest at funerals or shun their gay children or start any kind of belief-inspired genocide. What's that saying "Your right to make a fist ends when your fist approaches my face?"

- You don't have to agree with a person's belief to respect their right to their belief. If someone believes something weird and you don't agree or you point it out or you refuse to believe it, that doesn't mean you are persecuting them. Mormons think anything that doesn't validate Mormonism is persecution. Respecting someone's right to believe something doesn't mean you have to agree with the belief itself.

"I? Have great RESPECT? For... MORMONS?"

Having great respect means different things, depending on the context.

"I have great respect" in the UK often means the very opposite.

The usual and more honest acknowledgement phrase is: "I have a lot of time for..."

Another wiffle word phrase is: "I hear what you say" which is intended to be used by people in debates when they are actually doing the equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting: "La La La! I can't HEAR YOU!!!!"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/2012 05:00PM by matt.

I think the reason this topic keeps coming up is because socially we are still working out how to deal with this in a civil and productive manner.

For thousands of years, human beings have literally tortured and slaughtered each other over their supernatural beliefs.

In the last few decades, we have decided that, perhaps, that is not such a great idea.

The response was, "hey, we have to respect each others beliefs. Kum ba ya."

Now the pendulum is swinging the other way as we realize that we can't just live in a fantasy world where everyone respects everyone else's beliefs. Beliefs lead to actions, and actions can cause harm.

We're at an interesting point where we are figuring out how to hash this stuff out without killing each other but while still realizing that we can't just give everyone a pass to believe whatever the hell they want if those beliefs lead to problematic actions.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/2012 05:03PM by Pista.

Civil disobedience and protests valid tools used for social change. Great change has come about via civil disobedience and uncivil behavior. The founding of the USA, the Civil rights movement, India's independence, the elimination of apartheid in South Africa... I believe the protests at the LDS temples was not civil but accomplished a great deal. When dealing with disrespectful beliefs, I fail to see why I must be "civil" when there are other tools that can often work better.

From what I have seen, it seems to me that the LDS church teaches that civil disobedience and protests do not work in order to help prevent them from being used against TSCC.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/2012 05:31PM by MJ.

When I say civil, I do not mean polite; I meant it more in the sense of non-violent. I don't care if we're rude.

The founding of the USA, a war.
The Civil rights movement? Lots of violence
The independence of India, the same.

I am not preaching violence, but the reality is, history seems to clearly indicate that sometimes it is required for social change.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/2012 05:38PM by MJ.

Unless I missed something, the temple protests were civil protests that did not result in violence.

The whole point of my post is about the historic struggle between violence and peace. Most things happen somewhere in the middle, with constant swings of the pendulum.

The mantra of "respecting everyone's beliefs" is a reaction against violence, and an impractical extreme. What we keep doing is trying to hash it out. It will never just be okay, because people will always have opposing beliefs and some people will act on those beliefs in ways that oppress others.

But these threads keep trying to define the difference between respecting rights and respecting beliefs. I'm just looking at why the idea of respecting beliefs ever cropped up in the first place.

There were some reports of violence, not a lot, but there was violence at some of the protests, mostly in California.

http://www.christianexaminer.com/Articles/Articles%20Dec08/Art_Dec08_09.html

"In California, cases of violence were reported even before the election. Post-election, the Mormon church has been a major target because its members donated millions to the cause."

My point is, some of the most important changes may not have happened without violence being involved. To try to claim that the discussion should be "civil" as you seem to be doing in your OP is to deny the historic effectiveness of uncivil behavior.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/2012 06:01PM by MJ.

If strangers were respectful of others beliefs on internet forums the internet would be a much less interesting place.

. . . if you don't want people to laugh at your beliefs, then don't have funny beliefs.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/2012 05:33PM by baura.

In the 70s I remember this being in the news.

http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/strwhe.html

My step-mother had been in a concentration camp simply because her parents had opposed Hitler. The 70s were my first exposure to the rights of people I disagreed with. I struggled to understand what the news showed about Skokie.

People can believe whatever they want to. They can do things that make me sick and I have to accept that, but voices of disagreement to what they do should never be silenced. I have a right to disagree when Mormons claim that the Book of Mormon is a history. When I challenge things about Mormonism it is not hate speech but there might be some Mormons who would prefer that all of us posting here were silenced.

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
-- H. L. Mencken

If we have to respect people religious beliefs, then why don't we also have to respect schizophrenic people's "delusional" beliefs? They are people too, and their belief that aliens are after them, or that they have had mystical sex with dead rock stars, is just as meaningful to them, if not moreso.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/2012 05:44PM by baura.

Nice quote, baura. It reminds me of the RfMer who went to Scandinavia somewhere on his mission and people would tell him, "Mormonism might be true for you, but it isn't for me."