From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Still no Retraction
Date: 12 Nov 92 01:48:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Nov9.202042.20087@cbnews.cb.att.com>, wcsa@cbnews.cb.att.com (Willard C. Smith) writes...

[...]

>Believe it or not, I agree with you Mr Weiss. I doubt that *most*
>ex-Mormons do exaggerate their former standing and for me to say so was
>wrong. However, there are still many very public ex-Mormons who do exactly
>that, exaggerate their former standing. Such individuals make up a regular
>Who's Who of Anti-Mormon activitives: Nelson, Cowdrey, Decker, and Baer to
>name only a few prominate ex-Mormons in the last decade.

	I understand that a few people have exaggerated their 
previous standings. I have no argument with that. My argument was with 
the premise that *most* ex-Mormons exaggerate.

>However, don't try to put words in my mouth that I don't necessarily agree
>with. As I stated at the beginning of this latest round, back in September:

	This is curious. The words that I used came from Willard's 
letter. This is an excerpt:

[...]

ws> As he should recall I stated that Darrick Evenson had made two very serious
ws> charges against Ex-Mormons for Jesus. First, he charged that *most* 
ws> ex-Mormons exaggerated their former standing in the Church to build 
ws> up one's authoritative status. Second, he charged that there were 
ws> incidents were anti-Mormons would join the church and then leave 
ws> it shortly thereafter in order to gain the status of being an 
ws> "ex-Mormon" (see article posted Sept 17, 1992)
ws> 
ws> I then immediately stated the following:
ws>  
ws> >Evenson's charges might be simply dismissed if it were not for the fact
ws> >that supporting evidence seems to be coming from other Mormon Apologistic
ws> >literature. Although I do not especially care for the way that Robert and
ws> >Rosemary Brown have chosen to present the results of their investigations,
ws> >it is hard to ignore the hard data that they have dug up on several
ws> >important ex-Mormons who have actively participated in Anti-Mormon
ws> >ministries. 

[...]
	
	As is seen above, it is mentioned by Willard that Evenson's 
first charge is that most ex-Mormons exaggerate their former standing. 
Willard then adds his previous portion which states that Evenson's 
charges should not be dismissed. So the previous issue was that we 
should not dismiss Evenson's charges out of hand. One of the charges 
being that most ex-Mormons exaggerate their former standing.

	Now, Willard is saying that he doubts that most ex-Mormons 
exaggerate their former standing, and that my indication that this is 
his view is `putting words in his mouth that he doesn't necessarily 
agree with.'

	The words, however, are Willard's to begin with. I understand 
why he wishes to distance himself from his views. However, it should 
be understood that pointing out what one has previously stated on a 
subject is not putting words into one's mouth.

[...]

>>	The second charge is really moot. If a few people join the LDS 
>>to then quit, so that they can say that they are ex-LDS, so what? Is 
>>there an implication that these people are not real ex-LDS?
> 
>The charge is basically over the lack of intellectual/spiritual integrity.
>Why join a church that you don't believe in the first place unless you are
>attempting to project yourself as an insider (which you aren't). 

	I would wonder at their level of integrity also. However, we 
are not discussing their level of integrity, but whether or not their 
claim to be `ex-LDS' is influenced by their reason for joining. If 
someone joins, and then quits, they are literally `ex-LDS.' There is 
no fallacy to their claim that they are `ex-LDS.' Of course, their level of 
sincerity and integrity is highly suspect, but that is another matter.

>Four and a half years ago, when I first began participating in this group, we
>would see a Mormon Bashing secession occur once every six months. In the last
>year and a half, the bashing secessions have become more frequent. They seem
>now to flair up approximately every three months. Mr Weiss referred to Becky
>Harris and suggested that the Mormons were at fault for STARTING the bashing.
>Unfortunately for Mr Weiss I happen to have that "round" and Becky Harris
>came in about midway. I suspect that Mr Weiss joined the group about midway
>through the "round" as well.

	My response to Frank Farkas (if my memory serves) addressed 
the issue of "bashing." I have seen previous Mormon-Christian 
discussions on the net, and while most where generally brief, they 
couldn't be called "flares" or "bashing." Some, most assuredly, could 
be.

	What I take exception to is the portrayal of these discussions 
as "bashing." While I have seen "bashing" on this discussion, most of 
the discussions have focused on historical and scriptural evidence 
that discounts the Mormon church. Certainly, this may be unpleasant
to those in the Mormon church. However, this is not "bashing" the 
individual. The individual bashing that I saw came to an individual 
who chose to mention her former experiences.

	My mentioning the genesis of bashing should not be
misunderstood as giving the genesis of Mormon-Christian discussion.
The two are not the same and are worlds apart.

	By bringing this bashing to attention was to try and draw a 
distinction between bashing and discussion. To some people, there is 
the attempt to identify any discussion that is critical of the LDS 
church as "bashing." I wish to underline that there is quite a 
distinction between the two.

>The latest round began in September and is probably the longest one I have
>ever seen. Stats on the latest round:
> 
>    Began Sept 14, 1992
>    Everyone burned out about 1st week in November 1992

[...]

	I wouldn't be too quick to term it burn out. I have quite a 
few letters that I am waiting for responses from. It seems that no one 
wants to address certain issues. It also appears that 
the position of defending the Mormon church from historical and 
scriptural evidence has proved to be indefensible. 

=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
From: to@teecs.UUCP (Norman To)
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 15:52:49 GMT
Subject: Going to Heaven
Organization: Litton Systems, Toronto ONT