|
The following
transcript is an e-mail dialogue between a former believing
Mormon, Steve Benson, and a True Believing Mormon (a.k.a.
TBM).
The
devout Mormon believer started by saying he wanted to discuss
what he described as Steve's "statement on Mormonism."
The
exchange proceeded as follows:
TBM's
First E-Mail
Dear
Steve:
I just
read your statement on mormonism and your visit with "apostles"
Maxwell and Oaks. It seems as if you have and continue to
expect perfection from your religion as well as a profound
fixation on old Grandfather's health.
Your
accusations of lying by Oaks seems a little overstated and
your complaints about the church are not really compelling.
It seems like you are expecting perfection from these individuals
and the religion itself.
Ultimately,
though you and Mary Ann must surely be better off--you seemed
to never actually believed. I would note that many of your
complaints are true of religion in general and cannot be
limited to Mormonism. If you studied the Catholic, Muslim,
Jewish, Protestant and Buddhist religions and you would
be able to make the same (or similar) arguments against
them.
I assume
you must be a complete agnostic (possibly an atheist) if
you are intellectually honest.
I have
always found it interesting how Mormons who leave their
religion seem to have an overwhelming need to justify. I
wish you well in you endeavors and hope you have found peace.
Steve's
First Response
That's
quite a ringing defense of Mormonism--it's no worse than
any other.
I find
it interesting how those like yourself who witness Mormons
leave their church seem to have an overwhelming need to
criticize that choice--and to, well, justify the actions
of Mormon Church leaders in the process.
And
I am, in fact, an atheist.
Thanks
for writing.
TBM's
Second E-Mail
Steve:
Touche.
Nice points.
I will
say this. I don't believe that I try to justify the actions
of church leaders. I just try to understand them for who
and what they are. I simply don't believe a grand conspiracy
is taking place--designed to hide the facts or truth. (I
have read the Tanners,
Brodie,
Mike
Quinn, etc. and I am a dues paying member of F.A.R.M.S.)
If you
define prophet as you seem to have done (i.e. infallible,
all prophecies true, always speaks for God, etc.), then
by your definition the prophet who makes mistakes is false.
Others may see it differently. They are men with imperfections
and struggles and are trying to find their way just like
you and me. I found it rather refreshing that Oaks and Maxwell
did not have "burning bush" stories to tell. Why
should they?
Oh well.
I did not mean to offend.
Good
luck and I do enjoy your cartoons. We need to be able to
laugh at some of our silliness.
Steve's
Second Response
You,
in essence, defended Mormon Church leaders (specifically
Oaks and Maxwell) by asserting that my reasons for criticizing
them (and, by extension, for leaving the Mormon Church)
were less than compelling (and, hence, one might conclude),
unjustified.
Since
you offered your personal musings about what my views might
be on matters religious, permit me, if I may, to offer some
observations about yours.
You
now acknowledge that you are a dues-paying member of F.A.R.M.S.
Interesting that you did not offer that up in your initial
letter to me.
Are
you a faithful Mormon? I ask that, because you write and
think like many Mormons I have known throughout my life,
employing many of the same rationales, thought patterns
and word choices of true-believing LDS when defending their
faith against criticism.
I make
this observation within the larger context created by your
first letter. In your initial correspondence to me, when
referring to Oaks and Maxwell, you curiously put the word
"apostles" in quotes. (Your words: "your
visit with "apostles" Maxwell and Oaks").
Why
did you do that?
Do you
not regard them as actual apostles of God?
The
impression you seemed to have been attempting to make of
being an objective observer was further demonstrated by
another choice of words in your initial correspondence:
"I have always found it interesting how Mormons who
leave their religion . . . " By using the phrase "their
religion," you made it sound as if you were offering
some kind of detached observation and that you did not necessarily
share a belief in Mormonism.
If you
are not a Mormon, what are you in terms of religious belief?
You
have delved into my personal life with your own questions
in this regard.
It is
only fair that your probings be met with a similar inquiry.
TBM's Third E-Mail
Steve:
Before
I answer your question? Answer one of mine:
You
made a statement I found very interesting:
"[Y]ou
write and think like many Mormons I have known throughout
my life, employing many of the same rationales, thought
patterns and word choices of true-believing LDS when defending
their faith against criticism."
What
exactly do you mean? Seems like a broad generalization and
a significant conclusion to have drawn from a single e-mail.
But you may have a valid explanation. I would really appreciate
it if you would expound.
Steve's Third Response
I would
be happy to list manifestations of Mormon pattern thinking
which I have repeatedly encountered over the years in communication
with believing Latter-day Saints--and which are evident
in your communiques:
Example
#1: Twisting objections made by former Mormons
into assertions that were never made--in your particular
case, by reworking ex-Mormon criticism of Church leaders
into the red herring that Church leaders must be infallible:
Your
words: "It seems as if you have and continue to expect
perfection from your religion . . ."
Example
#2: Minimizing or dismissing misrepresentations
by the Mormon Church about the actual capacity of Ezra Taft
Benson to lead the Church in his final years as president,
given his severely deteriorated physical and mental condition:
[note: I changed the word to "his" from "the"
in a subsequent typo-corrected version resent to the TBM]:
Your
words: ". . . a profound fixation on old Grandfather's
health"
Example
#3: Accusing former Mormons of having a compulsion
to criticize the Mormon Church after having left it and
to defend themselves for having made that choice, by offering
a reworked version of the standard accusation, "you-can-leave-the-Church-but-you-just-can"t-leave-the-Church-alone":
Your
words: "I have always found it interesting how Mormons
who leave their religion seem to have an overwhelming need
to justify."
Example
#4: Passive-aggressiveness, in the form of extending
best wishes to the targeted ex-Mormon, after having first
excoriated him or her:
Your
words: "I wish you well in you endeavors and hope you
have found peace."
Example
#5: Evasively refusing to answer direct questions
when initially asked, instead diverting into other areas:
Your
words: "Before I answer your question? Answer one of
mine."
Perhaps
you can now respond to my original questions about the curious
nature of your first correspondence. I will not be answering
any more attempted diversions until you do.
TBM's Fourth E-Mail
Steve:
Fair
enough.
Here
is my response:
1. You
said I defended Mormon Church leaders (specifically Oaks
and Maxwell) by asserting that your reasons for criticizing
them (and, by extension, for leaving the Mormon Church)
were less than compelling (and, hence, one might conclude),
unjustified.
I believe
this to be true--although I only know what I have read.
This simply would not persuade me to disbelieve.
2. You
said that it is interesting that I did not offer up that
I was a dues paying member of F.A.R.M.S. in my initial letter.
I am
merely trying to show that I have actually read something
on the subject, lest you think of me as ignorant--which
you may anyway. Although I probably should have offered
it up initially.
3. [You
asked], "Are you a faithful Mormon?"
Yes.
I think I am.
4. You
said, "In your initial correspondence to me, when referring
to Oaks and Maxwell, you curiously put the word "apostles"
in quotes. ([TBM's words]: "your visit with "apostles"
Maxwell and Oaks")." [You asked], "Why did
you do that?"
I did
this because I supposed that you did not believe them to
be "apostles."
5. You
said, "Do you not regard them as actual apostles of
God?"
Yes
I do.
6. You
said the impression I seemed to have been attempting to
make of being an objective observer was further demonstrated
by another choice of words in your initial correspondence:
"I have always found it interesting how Mormons who
leave their religion . . . " By using the phrase "their
religion," you made it sound as if you were offering
some kind of detached observation and that you did not necessarily
share a belief in Mormonism."
You
are probably correct. Although I don't think I was trying
to tell you whether I was a believer or not.
Now
on to your last e-mail:
You
said:
Example
#1: Twisting objections made by former Mormons into assertions
that were never made--in your particular case, by reworking
ex-Mormon criticism of Church leaders into the red herring
that Church leaders must be infallible:
[TBM's]
words: "It seems as if you have and continue to expect
perfection from your religion . . ."
COMMENT:
The best I can tell from reading your writings is that your
expectations with religion were not met. I do agree with
you that twisting objections is a common method of an apologist
defending criticism.
Example
#2: Minimizing or dismissing misrepresentations by the Mormon
Church about the actual capacity of Ezra Taft Benson to
lead the Church in his final years as president, given the
snverely deteriorated physical and mental condition:[note:
"the severly deteriotated" changed by me to read
"his severely deteriorated" in a corrected version
I sent to the writer]
[TBM's]
words: ". . . a profound fixation on old Grandfather's
health"
COMMENT:
To me as LDS, I never felt like I was misled--even knowing
and fully believing your account. Your grandfather was obviously
incapacitated and unable to do much. The LDS process was
to have the First Presidency assume a decision making role,
which it seemed to have done. Was there some attempt to
buoy him up or overstate his capacity? Could have been--.
Do I minimize the misrepresentations? To the extent there
were any I do, because I don't believe them to have a material
impact one way or the other. Again, this goes back to Example
#1. As his grandson, you are more likely to see this as
significant. I just don't.
Example
#3: Accusing former Mormons of having a compulsion to criticize
the Mormon Church after having left it and to defend themselves
for having made that choice, by offering a reworked version
of the standard accusation, "you-can-leave-the-Church-but-you-just-can"t-leave-the-Church-alone":
[TBM's]
words: "I have always found it interesting how Mormons
who leave their religion seem to have an overwhelming need
to justify."
COMMENT:
True enough and you made a similar statement about current
LDS. Thus the same could be said of ex-Mormons defending
their decisions to leave.
Example
#4: Passive-aggressiveness, in the form of extending best
wishes to the targeted ex-Mormon, after having first excoriated
him or her:
[TBM's]
words: "I wish you well in you endeavors and hope you
have found peace."
COMMENT:
Also agree here--although excoriate is probably a bit strong.
Looking at it my statement was also a bit condescending.
Example
#5: Evasively refusing to answer direct questions when initially
asked, instead diverting into other areas:
[TBM's]
words: "Before I answer your question? Answer one of
mine."
COMMENT:
Agree. I was being a little evasive.
So what
does all this mean? That I am a typical defender of LDS
faith? Is that good or bad?
I am
sure that over the years you have received literally thousands
of e-mails from many LDS and non LDS alike. (In a passive-aggressive
way) I wish you all the best!
Steve's
Fourth Response
Thank
you for your forthrightness. Sadly, it came only after I
requested it.
I also
commend you for recognizing how your communications represented
the type of behavior I often see employed by believing Mormons
against those with whom they disagree.
My response
to your question about whether being "a typical defender
of the LDS faith" is good or bad is as follows:
From
my experience, you responded as many LDS believers do who
attempt to cope with dissonance by adopting rhetorical devices
and arguments which are often:
--a)
less the straight forward;
--b)
hostile, even perhaps to a personal level, toward those
who have abandoned the Mormon faith;
--c)
apologetic of inappropriate, misleading and dishonest behavior
by LDS leaders operating in their official capacities;
--d)
extremely defensive when challenged in their religious claims;
and
--e)
unwilling to change their opinions, even when presented
with documentable historical and scientific evidence that
is at odds with their beliefs.
You
ask me if that is "wrong."
It is
wrong for me.
It seems
to be right, however, for many Mormons.
Best
regards.
TBM's
Fifth E-Mail
Steve:
I tend
to agree much of your assessment of a typical LDS defenders
and apologists. (In fact it seems as if I fell into the
same trap which you aptly pointed out). I appreciate your
perspective and agree that it is wrong to engage in the
sort of defensive measures you describe.
I wonder
though if at least some of the initial negative reaction
to your statements stems from the fact that you seem to
be viewed by the ex-LDS and anti-LDS as a hero--given your
status as a member of the Benson family and your unique
access? I am not trying to be offensive, but just wonder
why you chose to publish on a site that contains much that
I perceive a simply designed as attacks on LDS faith (I
understand that numerous of those who write in on the same
site have personal specific experiences, offenses, lack
of scientific basis (or even view science as having disproved
the LDS faith).
Personally,
I am interested in learning, understanding and I don't have
all the answers. I love science and history. I don't believe
many LDS understand the history of the church very well
or understand errors that have been made and continue to
be made--or it may be that they don't want to know. But
for me, I must rely on some concrete belief system. I do
believe in the spiritual--it is something I have experienced
and won't deny. I am sure that you view the preceding sentence
as typical apologist jargon, but while it may be typical,
it is also personal. Thus, I must attempt to square the
spiritual with the scientific (Darwin, old testament, lack
of specific evidence for BOM, lack of old world genetics
in new world, King James version in the BOM, etc.) and historical
(enforcement of WOW, changes to text of scriptures, Abraham,
polygamy, accounts of first vision, apparent misrepresentations,
etc.). It is at times difficult, but also (for me) makes
religion vibrant and interesting. I cherish learning (spiritual,
scientific and historical).
I would
love to hear more about your odyssey. I'm sure it was difficult
to make the decisions you did. Are there other writings?
Again,
thanks for taking the time to correspond.
Steve's Fifth Response
I can't
answer for how others regard me--or why they react to me
the way that they do. Admittedly, I do have something of
a public profile and my criticisms of Mormonism are, I am
sure, seen by some in the ranks of the faithful as a challenge
to Mormon claims that deserve a response.
My criticisms
of the LDS Church have been open, readily-accessible and
offered in reaction to the drumbeat of pervasive and aggressive
projection of the LDS faith into the public arena--as made
and encouraged by its spokesmen, apologists, adherents,
defenders and missionaries since Mormonism's invention and
spread. If the Mormon Church is going to enter into that
arena, where it argues and angles for both converts and
their money, I think people have every right to offer critical
and contrary perspectives regarding Mormon claims.
There
is much, in my opinion, about Mormonism that deserves critical
analysis and skepticism. I find it curious that you would
object to seeing my opinions published on a site which you
perceive as being "simply designed as attacks on LDS
faith" when, in fact, F.A.R.M.S. itself--the organization
to which you pay dues--regularly and harshly criticizes
those who openly oppose Mormonism. Curiously, Maxwell's
defense to me of F.A.R.M.S as essentially being an arm of
the Mormon Church with the specific mission to prevent the
General Authorities from becoming "outflanked"
by Mormonism's critics, combined with his personal attacks
on Brent Metcalfe, don't seem to raise your ire. I suspect
that this is because you believe such assaults are justified.
It all boils down to one's perspective, does it not?
I am
not going to contest with you here on the subject of things
"spiritual," other than to say that I am an atheist
and find absolutely no compelling evidence in the physical
world for what believers claim to be both supernatural and
real at the same time. (I have written on this matter at
some length over the years, including an article that was
published in Harvard's Nieman Reports on my exit from the
Mormon Church). The burden of proof for the existence of
god and so-called "spiritual" phenomena outside
the realm of the physical world lies with those who make
such assertions. It has been rightly observed that extraordinary
claims require extraordinary proofs. So far, those proofs
from the believer's side of the aisle are, in my opinion,
sorely lacking. You are a believer who clearly came at me
with an agenda: one designed to attack and minimize the
claims of Mormon critics. In this, you are comfortably and
historically aligned with a legacy of Mormonism's apologists:
F.A.R.M.S, Mormon missionaries, Mormon leaders up and down
the hierarchical spectrum and, of course, rank-and-file
Mormon faithful, all of whom faithfully follow their leaders
in doing what they are told.
The
historical contradictions, scientific absurdities, documentable
atrocities, and overt ecclesiastical abuses of power committed
by Mormons in both the name and in behalf of their faith
do not make Mormonism vibrant to me--rather, they makes
Mormonism a hoax worthy of well-deserved criticism, exposure
and ultimate rejection.
I hope
you are able to find your way satisfactorily through the
significant issues surrounding Mormon doctrine, history
and claims, as you (to you cite your own words) attempt
"to square the spiritual with the scientific . . .
[and] historical."
I would
simply observe that on the matters which you list: Darwinian
evolution, the Old Testament, lack of specific evidence
for the Book of Abraham, lack of Old World genetics in the
New World, King James language in the Book of Mormon, changes
to Mormon scriptural texts, enforcement of the Word of Wisdom,
Abraham, polygamy, various accounts of the First Vision,
"apparent" misrepresentations, etc., the verdict
is in--and it is in not only compelling, but devastating.
That
verdict, in my opinion, is that Mormonism is a sham which
does not hold up under honest, critical and rational scrutiny.
But
you must find your own way. Given your interest in research
and study--combined with your obvious sincerity--I am confident
you will.
TBM's
Sixth E-Mail, with Steve's Responses Highlighted as Bold
Within the Text
Steve:
Your
criticisms of the LDS Church have in fact been open, readily-accessible
and apparently offered in reaction the LDS faith's purveyance
in the public arena. We should expect as much. I would also
agree with your statement that certain parts of "Mormonism
deserves critical analysis and skepticism." We should
not simply accept what we are told without critically examining
the underlying facts and establishing a basis for belief.
With respect to F.A.R.M.S., I must take you at your word
as to its mission (as stated by Maxwell). However, just
as you believe you are justified by your criticism, shouldn't
you also allow for opposing views such as those expressed
by F.A.R.M.S.? In fact, all really does boils down to one's
perspective.
I look
forward to reviewing your work published in Harvard's Nieman
Reports.
You
say you find absolutely no compelling evidence in the physical
world for what believers claim to be both supernatural and
real at the same time. Again, this is a matter of perspective
and whether you take a man's word at face value. I do agree
however agree that that extraordinary claims require extraordinary
proofs. You say that such proofs are sorely lacking If,
as you seem to believe, the LDS faith is a hoax, then nothing
offered to you as proof, whether visions, healings, witnesses,
appearances of holy beings, as recorded in both modern and
ancient texts could ever convince you, unless you personally
experienced it. (Again, I resort to LDS dogma, of which
I know you are critical.) I ask you as to what proofs you
would accept? Ancient text proclaiming Jesus" performance
of miracles?"
Simply
because a text makes claims that "miracles" have
occurred is not proof that they, in fact, took place. The
Book of Mormon claims that white people suddenly became
brown-skinned due to a god-imposed curse on them for supposed
sinfulness. The Bible claims that donkeys can talk in human
tongue and that dead people can miraculously regenerate.
Any text can make any fantastic claim it wishes. The question
remains, are such claims rational and can they be proven?
"God
actually appearing to man?"
The
operative word here is "actually." Lots of people
have claimed that god actually appeared to them, including
televangelist Oral Roberts, who a few years ago asserted
that a 900-foot-tall Jesus manifested himself to Roberts
and warned him that if more financial contributions weren't
forthcoming to the Roberts ministry, Roberts would die.
"Man
being healed through a blessings of faith?"
Please
provide empirically testable data indicating that physical
healings have resulted from "blessings of faith."
Again, many people ascribe their physical recuperation to
divine intervention, based on their particular form of faith.
Since they make that extraordinary claim, it is incumbent
on them to provide the extraordinary proof. Certainly, many
people have seen their health improve after appealing to
their respective deities. Others have not--and have remained
sick or even died. Please provide evidence that the healings
were a direct result of divine intervention.
Ultimately,
proofs are based on perspective. I take your statement as
true when you say that you do not find anything particularly
compelling in your own experience, yet you refuse to accept
anyone else's statements which if believed could serve as
a at lease a plausible basis for the existence of the supernatural
and spiritual.
Please
define what you mean by the "supernatural." Or
for that matter, please define what you mean by "god."
Then please provide proof that this supernatural presence
or god actually exists. The believers make the claim of
the existence of the supernatural; the believers therefore
shoulder the burden of proof. As an atheist, I am without
belief in god. I do not need to prove your claim. You assert
that god, the supernatural, the spiritual--however you define
the terms--exist. The ball is in your court to so demonstrate.
I also
note that I am a believer and I did come at you with an
agenda. My agenda was based on my incorrect assumptions
about you based on my reading of your material. I have had
dialogue in the past with some who have no experience with
LDS, yet purport to and spread what I believe to be inaccurate
statements. I have however altered somewhat my "agenda"
based on your open dialogue and your significant experience
with these matters. I will also concede that my design is
at some level to minimize the claims of Mormon critics.
Yet, I would quibble with one point, I do not follow church
leaders in doing what I am told without some basis for doing
so. It seems as if you may be suggesting that all faithful
LDS are blind follower, unable to logically process, interject
or question. It may be the case with some, but certainly
not all.
Your
agenda was to attack my claims against Mormonism in defense
of your faith, which you initially did (by your own admission)
in a somewhat evasive manner. I have seen other Mormons
adopt this approach, as well. Having thus seen it employed
many times by faithful Mormons during the decade since I
left the membership rolls of the LDS sect, these tactics
are not new to me and are readily recognizable. Your use
of them is merely one of the latest manifestations.
Please
also note that I did not use the term "blind follower"--you
did. You may want to guard against employing red herring
arguments. That said, it is a matter of both Mormon canon
and record that LDS leaders expect and teach that ultimate
obedience on the part of the Mormon faithful is an imperative
for eternal salvation. You acknowledge that you are a believing
Mormon. As such, one would then expect that you follow the
commands of your designated, allegedly divinely-called and
-inspired prophets, seers and revelators. If ultimately
you do not, then, according to Mormon doctrine, you are
not being appropriately faithful in the eyes of the Mormon
god who chose these leaders to show you the way.
You
noted that the historical contradictions, scientific absurdities,
documentable atrocities, and overt ecclesiastical abuses
of power committed by Mormons in both the name and in behalf
of their faith do not make Mormonism vibrant--rather, they
makes Mormonism a hoax worthy of well-deserved criticism,
exposure and ultimate rejection. With this I would also
disagree. While I do not disagree that much of this may
have happened, it goes back to perspective or application
to one's own experience and knowledge (i.e., what do these
mean to me as an individual with my own experiences? For
example, because Oaks may have misrepresented, should I
lose my faith? I think not. You would say that based on
the whole of it; there is nothing that could possibly be
true from a spiritual perspective. I would say that based
on the whole of it; there is much that is in fact true and
supportable.
I
made my comments within the broad panorama of evidence marshaled
against Mormonism's claims. Oaks's deceptions and dishonesty
are but one manifestation of the overall fraudulent nature
of Mormonism. No one can compel you to accept any of the
contrary evidence against the claims of the church to which
you choose to remain devoted. Suspension of disbelief in
the pursuit of maintaining faith--despite evidence striking
at the very foundation of the faith--is a common device
used by those not wishing to abandon their particular form
of sincerely and fervently held belief.
You
seem to resort to a witness of the "spiritual"
as the ultimate confirming sign to you of Mormonism's validity.
Billions of people, of course, in their own purported contact
with the divine, have had their own "spiritual"
confirmations, based on what they also describe as "spiritual"
feelings. Most of those experiences do not confirm that
Mormonism is god's "one and only true church."
In fact, to the numerous religious opponents of Mormonism,
their personal "spiritual" witnesses are regarded
as god's personal and undeniable revelation to them that
Mormonism is, in fact, false.
You
noted that with respect to the matters I listed: Darwinian
evolution, the Old Testament, lack of specific evidence
for the Book of Abraham, lack of Old World genetics in the
New World, King James language in the Book of Mormon, changes
to Mormon scriptural texts, enforcement of the Word of Wisdom,
Abraham, polygamy, various accounts of the First Vision,
"apparent" misrepresentations, etc., the verdict
is in--and it is in not only compelling, but devastating.
Again, I disagree, in my eyes it is not devastating at all,
and in fact it serves as the basis for additional discussion
and learning. I also believe that Mormonism does in fact
hold up under honest, critical and rational scrutiny. Are
there flaws?, of course there are and there should be. We
disagree on the significance of these matters in the grand
scheme.
If,
as a devout Mormon believer, these evidences are not fatal
to your faith of choice then, with all due respect, continue
to believe whatever you wish. In my view, Mormon claims
of divine origin have been thoroughly decimated by empirical
examination, rational thought and scientific evidence. But,
as I have frequently seen in the arguments offered up in
defense of the faith by true believing Mormons, feeling
ultimately trumps fact.
I
am not going to argue with you over these matters. You need
to follow your own path and do your own study. You know
the resources. The fact that you apparently felt compelled
to challenge my views indicates to me, at least, that you
may have internal issues yet to be resolved regarding your
own religious convictions.
I've
seen it before. I used to think like you.
Many
thanks.
Sincere
regards.
TBM's
Seventh E-Mail
Thanks
for the opportunity to speak with you. I found your article
in the Harvard Nieman Reports and it was most interesting.
Ultimately,
it seems we must agree to disagree. In spiritual matters,
I remain convinced of the veracity of the gospel.
It seems
as if we likely do agree on political matters.
Thanks
again.
Steve's
Seventh Response
Many
people remain likewise convinced--or unconvinced, as they
believe the spirit moves them.
Best
wishes in your continued research.
If
you enjoyed this e-mail exchange with a TBM,
Read TBM Hate Mail Surprise
Ending
|
