From a now-closed thread . . .

"JW":

"For Steve

"I am an ex-Mormon and an atheist. The only problem I have with you in the present context is that you have demonstrated on this Board, over and over again, a complete intolerance of views that are not consistent with your own. This intolerance has not just been about critical thinking, it has often spilled over into the personal, in that you have suggested that people having such opposing views are stupid and worthy of distain. In my opinion, by taking this approach you have undermined much of the good you do as an ex-Mormon."


--My response:

It is telling that you don't seem to mind participating on a board (RfM) where Mormonism is clearly not respected or tolerated because it is deemed to advance notions which are viewed as "stupid" and "worthy of disdain." I consider god-belief to be a notion that decidedly falls into the category of proveable foolishness and therefore regard rejection of it to be a legitimate pathway to recovery from Mormonism. Everyone has the equal right to express their ideas but not all ideas are created equal. I do not see it as my obligation to respect or tolerate religious ideas (whatever their source) which, to me, are utterly senseless, decidedly harmful and in their various manifestations clearly reminiscent of Mormonism.

You may not see it that way, of course, but everyone here has their own road to recovery--including those who critically and openly assess other forms of god-belief and conclude them to be noxiously, logically, demonstrably and destructively similar to Mormonism. Indeed, many on this board have made precisely that point. It is the clash of contrary views on matters religious that is a hallmark of this forum.
_____


"JW":

"I am not suggesting you should attack Maxine Hanks. I am suggesting that you should consider toning down your rhetoric on the assumption that there are others, perhaps like Maxine Hanks, that deserve a higher level of understanding."


--My response:

That is simply your opinion and one with which I profoundly disagree. I apply the same standard of assessment to other modes of faith-"think" as I do to Mormonism. To recognize and debunk the kissin' cousins of Mormonism is, in my view, to aid in recovery from Mormonism.

As to what I am saying about Maxine, you do not, in terms of critical actualities, understand her situation, her belief set (or lack-of-belief set) or her reasons, in toto, for returning to Mormon membership; therefore, where you have wandered off in your own "rhetoric" is in offering uninformed speculations about her basis for, and the conditions surrounding, that return.
_____


"JW":

"That said, when Maxine Hanks rejoined the Mormon Church, she would have been required to repent of her past errors (sins) and seek forgiveness from God for her critical writing about the Church and CHurch leaders. She would have had to acknowledge that Joseph Smith was a prophet, and the male dominated priesthood was God's plan after all. Thus, she either lied, or she is now a believer. It is not like someone who knows it is false, but chooses, for whatever reason, to stay. Maxine Hank's high profile, and excommunication, puts the matter on more serious moral footings."


--My response:

You haven't the foggiest idea of what Maxine has been supposedly required to do or not do in being re-baptized. Your assertions are teeming with false assumptions. There are details and circumstances surrounding why and how her re-baptism was effectuated, about which you do not have the slightest clue.

Like I said in the previous thread, I would address those matters directly and in detail, were it not for the fact that Maxine has personally asked me not to. I have, as her friend, honored that request; you, of course, are free to continue to snipe away at her without knowing the facts.
_____


"JW":

"I will give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she is a woman of character and actually believes Mormonism. If that is the case, then so much for her critical thinking skills. If, on the other hand, she is tricking the Church and is attempting to change it from within, then she is equally misguided, because Mormonism is fundamentally false, from beginning to end, and as an institution is doing great personal and social damage. To attempt to save it from within, by somehow making it a viable spiritual alternative, is almost as misguided as believing it in.

"So, either way, Maxine Hanks deserves reproach. Notwithstanding your attempts to salvage her character, and refusal to challenge her publically, by alligning herself with FAIR, she speaks volumes. It is a slap in the face to all exMormons who have been abused by Mormonism, and especially to you, her friend. Seeking spirituality is one thing. That is deeply personal. However, alligning oneself with a group whose very purpose is to lie and deceive, and put down and ridicule those of us who have been victimized by Mormonism and are speaking out, is quite another."


My response:

In your mind, she is either "tricking the Church" or "trying to change the Church from within," and is therefore "deserving reproach." Again, your simplistically-uninformed speculations are leading you to conclusions regarding circumstances surrounding her re-entry into the Mormon Church about which you are insufficiently educated.

Carru on.

*****


Observations made by two other posters in the previous thread:

From "sofia":

"You are being a good friend, Steve. I don't know Maxine's reasons. I have friends and family members who stay in the church. I know why some do, but some baffle me. Each have different paths to walk in this life. I can't live in the church right now, but have not resigned. To me it is recognizing their power, but I completely understand why some do and maybe someday I will. I don't understand why Maxine is speaking at FAIR, but I don't need to."


from "dagny":

"I'm sure she has her reasons for whatever she is doing. She has no obligation to explain to anyone.

"I do wish that she would not take what a bunch of us goofballs on a bulletin board say seriously. If only she could just blow off whatever it was that bothered her based on the fact she is probably smarter than 10 of us combined.

"A lot of the people who stay here have developed the ability "to have thick skin and speak out when they are miffed. Maybe if she had put the smack down to us we could have apologized or corrected things. Maybe it wasn't worth her time or interest.

"Since we don't get to know the facts, people will speculate. I guess that's what usually happens.

"I hope she has found a spiritual home if that is what she is looking for. She was a lovely person. I hope she is doing well."

(for the entire, now-closed thread from which the above was extracted, see: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,970687,970687#msg-970687)



Edited 37 time(s). Last edit at 07/28/2013 05:42PM by Susan I/S.

"--My response:

You haven't the foggiest idea of what Maxine has been supposedly required to do or not do in being re-baptized. Your assertions are teeming with false assumptions. There are details and circumstances surrounding why and how her re-baptism was effectuated, about which you do not have the slightest clue."


Yes, JW and the rest of us actually do have an idea of what Maxine was required to do in order to have her rebaptism "effectuated." You don't get to NOT believe Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and restored the one and only true church and be baptized. I don't care what her secret, subjective intents are with regard to her rebaptism. She had to answer questions with a yes or a no. Those answers either make her a believer or a liar. No middle ground. And as long as Maxine continues to hide her secret, subjective intent, she knows full well what will be inferred from her actions, and she has decided to embrace that inference. You trying to be all mysterious and pompous reminds me of the "leaders" who tell us, it would all make sense if you just knew what was contained in the documents in my briefcase ...."

Since when did Monson die and you become king, speaking for your subejcts?

And are you intimately familiar with Maxine's personal situation, having talked to her about it at length, during which time she filled you in on the unique particulars? I've had that opportunity.

(I see from your posting history that you have never shown up here before--at least not under your current I.D. Amazing how folks pop up here now and then, creating handles in the convenience of the moment: http://exmormon.org/phorum/search.php?2,search=+Can%27tHaveItBothWays,author=,page=1,match_type=ALL,match_dates=30,match_forum=2,match_threads=0).



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 07/28/2013 05:57PM by steve benson.

Nope, haven't talked to her or the guy with the document in the briefcase ...

"I do not see it as my obligation to tolerate religious ideas (whatever their source) which, to me, are utterly senseless, decidedly harmful and in their various manifestations clearly reminiscent of Mormonism."

But, of course, your level of toleration changes considerably when a personal friend is involved; even when she embraces an organization that is directly complicit in the harm Mormonism is causing; even when she participates in a conference where the express purpose is to support Mormonism (and the harm it is causing), while rebuffing the rest of us as misguided souls who have rejected the truth and are facing eternal damnation.

It's O.K. to allow them to use her as an example of ex-Mormon recovery, while the rest of us are fighting to show Mormonism for what it really is. In that case, we are all just too ignorant of the facts to judge her fairly. If we only knew we would understand.

Unfortunately, we all know what is required of the Church to repent and seek rebaptism. And we all know the belief questions that must be answered appropriately for such baptism. So, she either is a true believer, or she lied. It is that simple. Maxine Hanks is not only towing the Mormon line, she is biting into it hook, line and sinker. True, I have no idea what her mindset is, or her motivation. But there is enough here to conclude by her actions that she is not worthy of our respect.

But that's O.K., she is your friend. We get it.

. . . who, like "JW," pop up out of nowhere in the posting history of this board and pretend to know what went on with Maxine Hanks. Dates, places, times and details, please--unless, of course, you've spoken with Maxine yourself and gotten the same request for confidentiality. Heh.

"Either she's a true believer or she lied" doesn't cut it, even for your simplistic, first-generation computer of a brain. You don't know; I do--and that goes for the details leading up to her re-baptism. (We talked about that event before and after it occurred, btw). As a friend of Maxine, I choose to leave you to blabber on ignorantly.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 07/28/2013 06:14PM by steve benson.

I think a big part of recovering from Mormonism is letting go of false dichotomies. Believing in a polarized world where people are all good or all bad, all true or all false, all in or all out, is a cognitive distortion. And frankly, that's exactly the kind of thinking I wanted to get away from when I left.

So, I'm sorry, but I think there are A LOT of people that are being quite unreasonable where Ms. Hanks is concerned. The issue I see isn't in questioning why people leave or stay, but in doing it in a way that is blatantly hurtful to someone they don't even know. People make choices I don't agree with all the time, but the fact that someone else's choice makes me uncomfortable doesn't give me the right to stick my nose where it doesn't belong. It appears that many people on this board are uncomfortable with Ms. Hanks choice, but that doesn't give them the right to say nasty and judgmental things about her character.

It's fairly unusual for a high profile person to be excommunicated and then later to return to mormonism. This is going to be talked about and speculated about both within and without the church, no matter what.

I agree that meanness is unnecessary, but to be honest, people are pretty mean about Monson, Holland, Dew, Oakes et al. I really didn't see people being especially nasty to Maxine Hanks. I don't see many people rushing to protect Shari Dew's feelings very often.

I honestly don't see it as the same thing. I mean, granted, all of these people are public figures, but none of those mentioned above have gone through the kind of public condemnation and disillusionment that Maxine Hanks has been through.

Leaving because you want to is one thing. But being forced out against your will when you feel deeply attached to Mormonism (wrong or not) . . . I honestly cannot even imagine how damaging that must have been for her.

Do the people on this board have a negative opinion of D. Michael Quinn too? I mean, he hasn't exactly distanced himself from Mormonism since his excommunication. And yet, he has written some amazing things about the religion despite not being a member anymore, and has made some very public statements about still being in love with Mormonism.

I wonder why I haven't seen any threads devoted to questioning his character. Cause I bet that if he was given the chance to get re-baptized, he'd take it in a heart beat.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/28/2013 06:45PM by sstone.

I'm sure that was a very painful experience for Maxine to be excommunicated. Which is all the more reason people would speculate about why she might go back.

You can try.

. . . I can succeed.

I'm sorry, but you're not going to be able to control every thought about Maxine Hanks.

I am simply aware of facts about Maxine's situation that have not crossed the personal horizon of your awareness.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/28/2013 07:50PM by steve benson.

If you review the other thread, I was not the person who claimed you were acting like her bishop. That was another poster.

Steve, I thought you were more of a critical thinker. Maxine Hanks has decided to let the "public" information be the only information the public can use to draw their conclusions. Yes, you say you have secret information that would lead one to a different conclusion, although you won't say what that information is or what the different conclusion would be. You're about as effective in your argument as the Mormon leader with the paper that is about to be published with all the answers....

If Maxine does not want the masses to draw the obvious conclusion, then she should stand up and explain it. I think as a friend you have done a disservice to her by even saying anything at all on a public forum. Are you suggesting that Maxine Hanks got some special treatment that others don't get? Is her deal different than the deal they are offering others who may want to participate in a different capacity than an all-believing Mormon? Maybe Hmmm, maybe this should be investigated. We can ask for the "Maxine Hanks Special" while in talking to the bishop about how to co-exist with our member family.

... of your "thinking."

And if you know anything about friendships, you know that they can often be meaningfully solidified and better appreciated when friends agree to respect personal confidences--especially in situations involving challenging and sometimes dicey circumstances (even for baptized members), in the world of Mormonism.

You are in no place to lecture me about "disservicing" my friend when you don't know a tinker's dam about what was involved in this situation.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 07/28/2013 06:27PM by steve benson.

He's sticking up for a friend, which isn't the worse thing you can say about someone.

Maybe we'll have more information about Maxine after the upcoming FAIR conference. Perhaps she'll make some public statements that shed some light on her belief or non-belief or reason for returning.

As far as people speculating on her return, I can only hope that practicing mormons don't speculate on her reasons and then use her return to shame doubters, gays, confused kids, and family that made the choice to leave.

You haven't stuck up for her, you've simply implied that she either has lied to the church leaders to get rebaptized or that the church leaders required less for her in getting rebaptized. All you've done is confirmed hypocrisy or opened a can of worms.

. . . I have said that so indicates.

If you think you can, provide me the quote upon which you base that charge.

Indeed, I just phoned Maxine to inform her that I have been standing up for her here. Nice try.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 07/28/2013 07:16PM by steve benson.

How could they not use her in this way. Maxine is the poster child for the doubter returning to the fold. See everyone, the intellectual feminist who we kicked out has gone out into the world and realized that truth was right where she left it. She's humbled herself and come full circle, back in the fold. Amen.

Steve, it's telling when you can't respond to the substance of a post.

Maxine has decided to declare her belief in the Mormon Church through baptism. Having done so, she deserves negative commentary on a board that is comprised of the cult's ex-victims.

A parting thought, not necessarily limited to the current exchange: Steve, maybe the message that is trying to be conveyed to you is that you should treat others on this board the way you would like them to treat Maxine for whatever choices they have made or whatever it is they are working through, and realize that you don't always know everything. True critical thinking and debate does not require being a d*ck. I know you've been apprised of your obvious arrogance and rudeness many times, but how about tonight instead of manically editing your posts, you sit reflectively and ask yourself, "can I be less of an a**hole to people just trying to do the best they can?"

. . . with which to respond--and about the lack of which you have already admitted to in this thread:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,971985,972173#msg-972173


That said, you are using Maxine's situation to drive your own agenda concerning personal religious belief.

I am simply stating within the context of this and the previous, now-closed thread that Maxine's cicumstances and motivations are being grossly misrepresented by certain over-speculative RfM posters (and I say that as someone who does not agree with her decision to rejoin the Mormon Church).

I am sticking to the facts, as I know them from my interaction with Maxine to be; you are gorging yourself in uneducated speculations and then regurgitating them in this forum without benefit of back-story awareness of a situation about which you pretend to opine intelligently. Given that you can't address this matter with any meaningful awareness, your only recourse seems to be to resort to playground name-calling. (My name isn't Dick).



Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 07/28/2013 07:25PM by steve benson.

The majority of people on the board interact with each other. They share their hurts and past struggles in the Church and desires for a healthier and happier tomorrow. When someone divorces, loses a loved one or suffers a setback, RFM'ers come through for that person during the healing process.

Even when there's a heated debate, there is still an exchange of ideas, and some sort of acknowledgement of another person as a fallible human being with his own thoughts, emotions, and differences. There are even apologies on RFM, by those who have in a heated moment, said something harsh to another poster and now wish to amend the rift.

But Steve, I never see you truly interact with anyone here in a casual, humorous or positive level. I've never seen you acknowledge others in the slightest, unless its to attack them.

I never see you say, "Gee, I feel sad that your mom passed away, here are my condolences." Or "Yes, the same horrible thing happened to me when I was a youth in MIA, I can commiserate with you, friend."

Sure, you share your data, your news clippings, and lots of bandwidth, but what you mainly share is your anger.

And since you don't acknowledge us as actual breathing human beings with feelings, your attacks can be quite brutal. They are usually attacks directed at our lack of something: intellect, critical thinking abilities, secret insider information about those who are higher up in the church.

It is predictable and tiresome. The pattern is clear. You post a lot of information, then attack those who disagree with you in any way. Sometimes your attacks go on for days, in extended posts - Part I, Part II, Part III.

Is there some fear behind all this anger? Are you afraid to show your human side? Or is it just a case of pure indifference and contempt for all of us?

I've had plenty of supporters and critics on this board over the years with regard to my postings.

I learned a long time ago that trying to align my posts with the personal preferences of others is a futile undertaking. I call things as I see them and attempt to document those views, when appropriate, with relevant and legitimate citations. (As has been noted, "Facts can be inconvenient things." Maybe brutal, even).

But thanks, nonetheless, for trying to remake my offerings in your image.

(And, btw, if you have never seen me express condolences here to those who have lost loved ones, then you haven't been reading. But never mind that. There are three kinds of memories: good, bad and convenient).



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 07/28/2013 07:35PM by steve benson.

My personal "preference" is that I wish to be treated as a human being when I post something to the board. As you said, trying to align yourself with that is a futile undertaking.

. . . and honest ones, at that.

This Hamlet-like death scene you are acting out is rather uber-dramatic (especially when you throw in your false flourish about me never offering condolences. Anything to bolster your pre-determined script).

Encore! :)

Now, where we? Oh, those personal assaults on Maxine Hanks . . .



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 07/28/2013 07:48PM by steve benson.

Does anyone ever wonder what it must be like to be Steve after he's hit "Post message"? I imagine him all hunched over the computer, swearing at himself in low tones, grumbling nonsense about what he wished he would have said, and then going back to edit with OCD-like determination, exclaiming "a ha!" then repeating the whole process over and over again...sometimes 37 times ... until he's driven himself mad and wasted a whole evening he could have spent with his kids.