From a now-closed thread , , ,

"Re: Response to "Just Wondering" about Maxine Hanks' Re-Baptism ...

"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."

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,971985,972283#msg-972283
_____


Well, "Can'tHaveItBothWays," you certainly do a bang-up job at hunched-over response (especially just after Admin has deleted you).

By the way, having fun ,in-between your posts, with your kids?

:)



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 07/28/2013 08:45PM by steve benson.

Steve, why are you starting new threads to criticize Maxine Hanks, if it hurts her? I thought you were her friend.

Seriously, man. What are you doing?

Which allows for a proper defense to continue.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/28/2013 08:34PM by steve benson.

Alright, whatever.

Carry on!

I appreciate your relentless assistance when, together, we ferreted out the TBM who was messing with Wiki over the proof of David O. McKay's plagiarism.

http://exmormon.org/d6/drupal/Are-TBM-Lurkers-Reading-This-Board



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/28/2013 08:22PM by steve benson.

...did you clear with her this tactic for continuing to generate the "profound hurt" that the untrue claims have inflicted on her? Why stir up the hornet's nest just so you can bat down each emerging hornet...after they've stung her again?

I don't need an answer--it's just a question for you to ask yourself.

She does tell me, though, when she wishes for the details of discussions between us to remain confidential and I have honored that request, given the unique circumstances in which she finds herself.

Btw, you don't need to answer my answer to your question. It is simply offered for you to ponder. :)
_____


P.S.: If you examine the posting history on this issue, you will see that "Just Wondering" was the one to initiate the discussion. Perhaps you should be directing your hornet's nest-sting at "JW" instead of at "sb."

:)



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 07/28/2013 09:19PM by steve benson.

This doesn't seem to be about Maxine.

OK, maybe it's actually about Devoted Exmo?:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,970687,970687#msg-970687

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,972296



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 07/28/2013 08:23PM by steve benson.

I don't think this is about Maxine either - it is about personal and viscous abuse being directed at Steve because he is defending his friend from hurtful speculation.

Ms Hanks was excommunicated, she didn't leave voluntarily and she has clearly been a spiritual seeker over the years. She has chosen to return to membership. I don't understand why she would want to do that and I will be interested in seeing what she has to say at the FAIR conference. But she has not been engaging in shonky apologetics and doesn't deserve personal attacks. When she puts some more information into the public arena at FAIR, that will be the time to weigh up what she is saying and have at it :-) I look forward to it.

I also don't see how Steve's spirited engagement with creationists and the like relates to Ms Hanks situation. Steve and many of us here object to people misusing science or history to sell a different flavor of koolaid to people recovering from Mormonism. You won't usually see the skeptics chiming in on threads about (say) someone relating their experience with a different church or discussions about other religions/spirituality (I say usually - nontheists/skeptics can be dickheads too). But if someone is using similar tactics to the ones we have all just escaped from; dishonestly (or mistakenly) representing science or history to advocate some flaky position, then it is game-on. As the saying goes, people have a right to their own beliefs, not their own facts.

So the situations don't equate at all. I have not seen Steve attack anyone for a personal belief. But if people play loose with facts, he is likely to clobber them with an evidence-based 60-pound post.

Well, I for one appreciate your contribution to this board Steve.

For every couple vocal assholes on here, there are dozens of silent readers (including me for a long time) that look forward to your posts.

What drove Maxine to humiliate herself....

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/28/2013 08:37PM by steve benson.

Now who's being dramatic?

"Anti Maxine Hanks bombardment."

What a joke. Is this part two now? We were merely speculating in our posts about her yesterday, but you've turned it into your own personal and valiant defense, labeling us as attackers and haters.

. . . a little late, perhaps, but nonetheless you did make your appearance, as predicted.

I am proud to man the AA guns in Maxine's defense. :)



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/28/2013 08:39PM by steve benson.

Maybe Maxine Hanks is in fact Heavenly Mother, and therefore we are not supposed to talk* about her.


*special note - although we are not to talk about Heavenly Mother(perhaps aka Maxine Hanks), we can sing about her in the Hymn "Oh, My Father". I hope that this is helpful.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/28/2013 08:37PM by steve benson.

Maxine went back for her own reasons, hers alone. I won't speculate on the reasons.

Personally I can't see why anyone would go back and don't have much respect for people who are intellectual and do go back. But again that's their choice and not mine.

Hey. One more thought for more perspective...

Many times we have had Steve share with us all kinds of conversations he has had or researched exposing lies or experiences.

I think I can conclude that in this case he has given his word to someone and is honoring it. This is a matter of integrity. I'm sure he would like to set the record straight and let us know what we have wrong.

However in this case he can't...because he has standards about such things. He has high journalistic ethics. He is also provocative. He's paid for this talent I might add. He can get people thinking. He can get people riled up. It's one thing that makes this board zing above the others.

I met Maxine many years ago. If I remember correctly at the time she had some experiences that had influenced her. She has done intense study that includes the feminism and the divine. At the time I would not have been surprised if she joined the Catholics or started her own church. I don't think there is any reason to speculate that she would have lied about anything if she was re-baptized. Perhaps her views have changed. I don't know.

It would be interesting to know her story. I do not think I would agree with her about spiritual matters now but I do remember enough about her to know she has a gift as a leader and could change views about the roles of women or whatever she decides to do.

I think of things that could make me do things that others would question. For example, she could be doing something for the greater good for her family or community or career.

We don't know. She has asked Steve to not share. I think he is showing restraint and respect. I think this adds to his credibility even more.

I do hope for her that she doesn't get hurt by the church again if her views are too unconventional.

There is, for example, some very telling stuff on Monson that I would like to publicly set the record straight on, too, but because of an agreement presently in place, I will not do so.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/28/2013 09:32PM by steve benson.

I imagine the speculation would have nearly evaporated by now, had someone not taken up the banner of "I have inside information that I like to tease about."

Speculation in the lack of information is a perfectly natural, normal, and healthy response to an action by a public, some would say heroic, figure. Especially when that person makes, what would appear to be on the surface, an inexplicable decision.

Should, say, Br. Benson suddenly return to full fellowship in the Church without explanation, would he expect the RFM board to remain silent on the matter? Perhaps he would demand that of us, based on what we are seeing here, but that would be purely speculative...

That's a valid point.

. . . tease out about Maxine and I have refused to go there, for the reasons given.

You are assuming that if I returned to full fellowship in the Mormon Church it would be akin to Maxine's rebaptism. I would caution against drawing such assumptive conclusions.

Now, if I (in the totally impossible scenario) were to return to the Mormon Church and RfMers were to then engage in speculation that was not fact-based as to why I had done so, I would hope that someone in the know would at least publicly note that such speculations were inaccurate, should I be inclined for personal reasons to remain silent.

If this person and I had an agreement that detailed release of certain information would not take place, I would hope that such an understanding would be honored until, or unless, that agreement was changed.

This is really a no-brainer, folks.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 07/28/2013 09:47PM by steve benson.

believes she can do more good from the inside of the church than from the outside. All we can do is to respect her right to make her own choices.

(I've always admired your energy level as evidenced on this board, Steve. Keep it up!)

: )

I came in late to this conversation, and I'm having a hard time getting my mind around what's happening here.

An excommunicated high profile former "Mormon Intellectual" has decided to get baptized back into the Cult, and is speaking at an upcoming Mormon Cult Apologetics Conference. She reads this board (posts too?), and is upset at the speculation behind her actions, but won't answer them for fear of being MORE upset.

A high profile personal friend of hers knows her reasons for rejoining the Cult and speaking at a Apologetics Conference, but has been asked by her not to mention those reasons on this board. He doesn't agree with her reasoning, but still wants the others on this board to refrain from speculating on those reasons?

First of all, have I got it right so far?

Second of all, are we sure that Steve is REALLY her friend, and not just "punking" us all with a little reverse psychology?

I don't know, none of this is making sense to me. I go away from RfM for a day or so and come back and I'm in Backwards Land.

WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE?!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/28/2013 09:44PM by sonoma.

Ok Steve. For the time being, I'm going to assume that Dannites are holding her Grandchildren hostage in the bowels of the Salt Lake Temple...

EVERYONE: If you want to go back to the Mormon church and be re-baptized, you should go! Ain't nobody's business why. It is your right to choose. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's in the constitution.

EVERYONE: If you want to comment on people who go back to the Mormon church and be re-baptized, you should comment! Ain't nobody's business why. It is your right to Speak. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's in the constitution. :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/28/2013 09:31PM by sonoma.

Well played, sonoma! Well played.

Love you, Wine Country Girl...



and NOT just because your first name is Wine!

I agree, the information Ms Hanks has given about her preference for lay clergy, and her interest in the divine mother would all be fair game for discussion. I note she hasn't been defending indefensible church history or anything like that, but has a different take on the relationship between people and church. This would make an interesting discussion.

But the original posters were calling her cowardly, or saying she must be lying, or doing it for status/egotistical reasons. These personal attacks were unwarranted. Steve politely told people that this was not the case. Then there was a dogpile on Steve.

Most of the posts have been Steve beating people into submission, or people either objecting to being beaten into submission, or people agreeing with Steve. Remove all that and there'd hardly be anything left.

I remember the good old days when John Dehlin decided to stick with Mormonism. People had their say about why they thought he did it, most of which was not particularly flattering to John. The subject drifted into the RfM backwaters, and that was that.

I thought Makurosa made a good point.

I also find it odd to start a thread to stop threads about speculating on why a specific person re-joined the lds church. I also don't think it is appropriate to tell people to stop speculating. If you can or care to enlighten us with her actual reasons and can add something to the discussion then fine. But to tell people not to speculate makes you sound alot like a bishop or SP who would tell members not to speculate who is going to be picked for a position. Personally, I don't care at all about her reasons. I think it is interesting to speculate in a generic sense about why a person would re-join, and maybe that would keep you from getting your shorts all in a knot...