RFM reveals himself

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I think at one time he was the gospel doctrine teacher in his ward. 

Yes. He used to show up nearly every week to tell us all how brilliant and spectacularly popular his most recent lesson had been. I suspect other forums now get regular updates on how brilliant and spectacularly popular his most recent podcast has been. 

[mnn727]

14 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Radio Free What?

Exactly 

Anti/ex Mormons take themselves way too seriously as do the people who post here. When you get outside the mountain west very few people know what a Mormon is, let alone why someone would be anti.

[bluebell]

I remember Consig and liking most of his posts.  I was sad that he became a critic but I don't know that it was really a surprise.  It seems like with a lot of the posters that end up that way, you can see the evolution happening.  I know nothing about RFM.  I didn't really know there was such a person until a few months ago.  And I didn't know until it came up a couple weeks ago that his identity was a secret.

[blarsen]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Kerry's case was such a shame too because Riskas did not at all understand that religion is not science and poor Kerry gobbled it up.  Again I love the Galileo quote "Scriptures teach us how to get to heaven, not how the heavens go"  That is the simple truth that neither Riskas nor poor Kerry understood.   They were both looking for scientific evidence where it could not be found, and should not be found.

Kevin C did a very good job of refuting Riskas based essentially on that point.

https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/sophic-box-and-mantic-vista-a-review-of-deconstructing-mormonism/

Thanks on this!  I used to interact w/Kerry when I first cautiously stepped into the web and was really surprised when I learned he had jumped ship years later.  And Riskas vs. Christensen . . . .  this looks good!  Thanks.

I'm someone with a strong tendency to hang around in the sophic box (science background), but have been fortunate to have been beaten over the head w/mantic, or numinous if you will, experiences . . . . both in religious and nonreligious contexts.  Kerry must not have been so 'lucky'.

Humans interact w/the world via their 5 senses, sometimes with intervening instrumentation.  But what positivists don't seem to understand is that we are also a nexus for information/experiences that originate outside of the sensory realm; though these mantic influences can surely activate/use our senses in their manifestations.  We seem to be at the center of both worlds or realms.

Edited August 3, 2019 by blarsen

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I remember Consig and liking most of his posts.  I was sad that he became a critic but I don't know that it was really a surprise.  It seems like with a lot of the posters that end up that way, you can see the evolution happening.  I know nothing about RFM.  I didn't really know there was such a person until a few months ago.  And I didn't know until it came up a couple weeks ago that his identity was a secret.

Same for me.  I don’t know his history here with some who seem angry or bitter towards him (may be justified, I don’t know).  I’ve only read a few of his posts and some about his work on the recent abuse case, but I’ve always felt he was civil and courteous and knowledgeable.  Even if some disagree with him, he seems like a decent and fair guy.

Edited August 3, 2019 by JulieM

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, blarsen said:

Thanks on this!  I used to interact w/Kerry when I first cautiously stepped into the web and was really surprised when I learned he had jumped ship years later.  And Riskas vs. Christensen . . . .  this looks good!  Thanks.

I'm someone with a strong tendency to hang around in the sophic box (science background), but have been fortunate to have been beaten over the head w/mantic, or numinous if you will, experiences . . . . both in a religious and nonreligious context.  Kerry must not have been so 'lucky'.

Humans interact w/the world via their 5 senses, sometimes with intervening instrumentation.  But what positivists don't seem to understand is that we are also a nexus for information/experiences that originate outside of the sensory realm; though these mantic influences can surely activate/use our senses in their manifestations.  We seem to be at the center of both worlds or realms.

Good stuff!

I have recently started using the word "impression" to unify these two ways of "seeing as" - a concept studied heavily by Wittgenstein with his rabbit/duck illustration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit–duck_illusion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Investigations#Seeing_that_vs._seeing_as

In the rabbit/duck illusion the important point is that in "seeing as" a rabbit or "seeing as" a duck, the world does not change- but there IS a cognitive change in context in which what was always there is seen in an entirely different way.

This is what can unify science and religion- in the ability to see both as simply different ways of seeing one reality.

I have experimented with different words trying to convey this idea - using words like experience or perception but I think the word that will communicate best to LDS audiences is "impression".

I think this is a good word to illustrate that we have both sensory impressions and intuitive impressions and that they are very similar in that they are a kind of "data" that enters our brain/minds and which is instantly turned into a feeling or sense perception, and such an impression is not of what is IN the world as much as our.... IMPRESSION of what supposedly is in the world.

So scientifically we might say that photons strike a  surface, some of which are absorbed and others reflected, and enter the eye and our retina/brain turns them into "impressions" of a red car driving through a mountain forest.

Similarly we have "gut reactions" to a growling animal outside the tent at night- giving us an impression of possible danger, or at least something to be investigated.

I would argue similarly that we can receive impressions in the LDS sense of "spiritual experiences", or "spiritual impressions"  which I also have been privileged to receive many times in my life.

In all these cases, we have certainty of the impression- that there really IS a red car in a green forest, or an animal outside the tent, or that perhaps God wants us to do or not do something.

These impressions are what make up our reality.

For all practical purposes impressions ARE reality- we can know nothing else.

We pool those impressions through language and some we call "science" and others we call "religion" because some are about what gives meaning to our lives and others about about useful "facts" to make a motor run or launch a space vehicle.

But it is important to realize that the bottom line is that they are OUR impressions of reality- not reality in itself.

We see through a glass darkly but some day face to face. 

We just need to remember that one impression is as good as another but have different purposes.  Religious impressions give us meaning in our lives and sense perceptions help us "make things go" and make life easier.

And again quoting Galileo, one kind tells us how to go to heaven and others tell us how the heavens go.

See also my siggy below for a little more philosophical approach

Edited August 3, 2019 by mfbukowski

[LoudmouthMormon]

Ok, spent a little time reviewing a few hundred of his posts from years in the past, and now remember more clearly what I liked about the guy.

I decided early in life to align myself with truth, and I've always been a fan of factually relevant witty zingers, no matter what the agenda is of the person making them.  Starting in the late '90's, I spent over a decade seeking out criticisms of my faith.  Watched the apologetic battle happen, eventually participated in it.  I figured the truth would prevail.  You take a criticism, slice off all the emotion/sensationalism/rhetorical finesse,  and make it as strong/relevant/powerful/concise as possible.  Then you see if it's answerable (again, with an answer bereft of emotion/etc, containing only blunt relevance).  Truth prevails when you have a clear winner between pure criticism and pure answer.

After 20+ years of doing that, my testimony of the reality and divinity of Christ, and the BoM and restored church being what they claim to be, are as powerful as the day I first gained it.  I've also come to understand most criticism and much apologetic answers to have a crapton of human weakness, ignorance, and fallibility crowbarred into it.  

Anyway, consig was always great at reducing something down to strong/relevant/concise.  Liked it.

[mfbukowski]

error

Edited August 3, 2019 by mfbukowski

[alter idem]

16 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not here. He’s an attorney by profession. He used his expertise to get the BYU-PD to turn over its interview records in the Denson case. He discussed his efforts on Mormon Discussions and, I think, his podcast. His name came up in news coverage from his nosing around in the Denson case. It was easy to put two and two together and learn his name, but I’ve forgotten it now. I could try to find it, but, like I say, I’m not that interested. 

In fact, I’ve lost interest in this thread. 

That's what I recall.  I thought we'd already figured out who RFM was. But, I guess he's decided not to hide his identity anymore.  I remember that thread about him in the Denson case and I wrote his name down at the time.

[LoudmouthMormon]

Current modern convention:  If you know who someone is, sometimes it's not kosher to post the info publicly.  Somewhere between not-polite, and evil doxxing.  (Funny part is, even if the information is already publicly accessible for anyone who looks, you can still end up judged by the jury of your anonymous internet peers as a bad guy for sharing it.)

I guess I can sort of understand that.  I mean, a dedicated searcher could take my username, do some searching on various websites and forums, and end up with my facebook profile, name, ward, perhaps even my address.  I wouldn't like that posted here.  Even though it's publicly accessible.

Edited August 3, 2019 by LoudmouthMormon

[alter idem]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

I remember Consig and liking most of his posts.  I was sad that he became a critic but I don't know that it was really a surprise.  It seems like with a lot of the posters that end up that way, you can see the evolution happening.  I know nothing about RFM.  I didn't really know there was such a person until a few months ago.  And I didn't know until it came up a couple weeks ago that his identity was a secret.

I remember him as well, he wasn't a critic then.  I remember another poster from way back who was big into the Book of Abraham and became a bitter critic.  I can't remember his name, though, It's been a long time, but that's one that I remember feeling very sad about.

[alter idem]

3 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Current modern convention:  If you know who someone is, sometimes it's not kosher to post the info publicly.  Somewhere between not-polite, and evil doxxing.  (Funny part is, even if the information is already publicly accessible for anyone who looks, you can still end up judged by the jury of your anonymous internet peers as a bad guy for sharing it.)

I guess I can sort of understand that.  I mean, a dedicated searcher could take my username, do some searching on various websites and forums, and end up with my facebook profile, name, ward, perhaps even my address.  I wouldn't like that posted here.  Even though it's publicly accessible.

I don't recall that anyone posted his name here, I believe several posters gave bits of information and I just put them together did some searches to figure it out.  I'm curious that way.  But it sounds like it doesn't matter since he came forward himself.

[Calm]

There was a name of a lawyer published when BYU Police lost the lawsuit. People assumed that was consig, but I don’t think it was confirmed. That was posted here, but might have been removed. 

Same name:  https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2019/06/16/when-did-lds-church-know/

Edited August 4, 2019 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

There was a name of a lawyer published when BYU Police lost the lawsuit. People assumed that was consig, but I don’t think it was confirmed. That was posted here, but might have been removed. 

Same name:  https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2019/06/16/when-did-lds-church-know/

A quick Google indicates yes, that is his IRL name.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

There was a name of a lawyer published when BYU Police lost the lawsuit. People assumed that was consig, but I don’t think it was confirmed. That was posted here, but might have been removed. 

Same name:  https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2019/06/16/when-did-lds-church-know/

It's still there.

And the match-up is pretty obvious for those who follow the Mormon Discussions Board, where RFM detailed his exploits regarding the Denson case and was lauded by the inhabitants over there. And, for the record, I don't agree there is anything particularly unethical about highlighting information that is publicly accessible on the internet. I guess this is where Loudmouth Mormon and I differ.

But, as Alter Idem points out, it's obviously a moot point now.

Edited to add: I remember now how I made the connection. Bill Reel has a number of podcasters whom he features on his own podcast platform; Radio Free Mormon is one of them. It was Bill who set RFM up with a podcast of his own on that platform. On his own podcast, Bill had done an interview with an attorney about the Adam-God theory (though, at the time, he didn't identify the attorney as Radio Free Mormon).. The name of the attorney was the same as that given in the Trib piece. That's how I put it together and why it seemed obvious to me that they were one and the same.

Edited August 4, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

16 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Yes. He used to show up nearly every week to tell us all how brilliant and spectacularly popular his most recent lesson had been. I suspect other forums now get regular updates on how brilliant and spectacularly popular his most recent podcast has been. 

I clearly recall he took great pleasure in being something of a maverick in how he carried out his gospel doctrine teacher calling, ultimately ignoring the manual altogether and coming up with his own topics not even based on what was in there.

But that was a long time ago. He has moved on since then.Hence the RFM podcast.

Edited August 4, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I clearly recall he took great pleasure in being something of a maverick in how he carried out his gospel doctrine teacher calling, ultimately ignoring the manual altogether and coming up with his own topics not even based on what was in there.

You say that like it's a bad thing. 😉

[ERMD]

5 hours ago, alter idem said:

I remember him as well, he wasn't a critic then.  I remember another poster from way back who was big into the Book of Abraham and became a bitter critic.  I can't remember his name, though, It's been a long time, but that's one that I remember feeling very sad about.

I remember him and his name.  That saddened me as well.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

You say that like it's a bad thing. 😉

It can be. 

You phrase your comment as though it’s invariably a good thing. 

Edited August 4, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Vance]

On 8/2/2019 at 6:42 PM, provoman said:

The voice/person behind Radio Free Mormon.

Never heard of him.

[ALarson]

15 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Current modern convention:  If you know who someone is, sometimes it's not kosher to post the info publicly.  Somewhere between not-polite, and evil doxxing.  (Funny part is, even if the information is already publicly accessible for anyone who looks, you can still end up judged by the jury of your anonymous internet peers as a bad guy for sharing it.)

I agree.  Some of what members have posted here is almost embarrassing to read (and getting too personal, IMO at attacking this man).  I cannot imagine our leaders being happy reading this from anyone who claims to be a righteous, active member of the church or represents our active members in any way.  

I do know who this poster is and have read some of what he's written.  I wish he were still in the church, but I have found him to be a seemingly good person who is articulate, smart and sincere.  If I met him in real life, I'd probably really like him  

Edited August 4, 2019 by ALarson

[Tacenda]

Funny thing is RFM was a just like many of you at one time, defending the faith as has a few others. I wonder what it takes to make a 180 degree turn. Some it takes a few troubling issues and others it wouldn't matter what the issue, is the church will always be true. I wonder what RFM's was that broke the camel's back. Here is his podcast of recorded lessons he gave in his younger years, he sounds so different, but it's definitely him. 

https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2019/05/radio-free-mormon-065-defender-of-the-faith-part-1/

Today RFM tells you his early history as an apologist for the faith.  How even as a Young man he was intimately aware of the “Anti-Mormon” material and even taught a 12 week course on Mormon Apologetics……..  Really cool surprise in this episode.  He recorded those 12 weeks of conversation on cassette tape…….   Now Where are those cassettes and what happened to them.   Your about to find out!!!!

[bluebell]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Funny thing is RFM was a just like many of you at one time, defending the faith as has a few others. I wonder what it takes to make a 180 degree turn. Some it takes a few troubling issues and others it wouldn't matter what the issue, is the church will always be true. I wonder what RFM's was that broke the camel's back. Here is his podcast of recorded lessons he gave in his younger years, he sounds so different, but it's definitely him. 

https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2019/05/radio-free-mormon-065-defender-of-the-faith-part-1/

Today RFM tells you his early history as an apologist for the faith.  How even as a Young man he was intimately aware of the “Anti-Mormon” material and even taught a 12 week course on Mormon Apologetics……..  Really cool surprise in this episode.  He recorded those 12 weeks of conversation on cassette tape…….   Now Where are those cassettes and what happened to them.   Your about to find out!!!!

I think for some the change comes when they become critical and begin to embrace skepticism/doubt. 

[Jeanne]

I know who he is and he is and honest and knowlegeable nice guy..nuf said. 

[blarsen]

On 8/3/2019 at 11:25 AM, mfbukowski said:

Good stuff!

I have recently started using the word "impression" to unify these two ways of "seeing as" - a concept studied heavily by Wittgenstein with his rabbit/duck illustration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit–duck_illusion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Investigations#Seeing_that_vs._seeing_as

In the rabbit/duck illusion the important point is that in "seeing as" a rabbit or "seeing as" a duck, the world does not change- but there IS a cognitive change in context in which what was always there is seen in an entirely different way.

This is what can unify science and religion- in the ability to see both as simply different ways of seeing one reality.

I have experimented with different words trying to convey this idea - using words like experience or perception but I think the word that will communicate best to LDS audiences is "impression".

I think this is a good word to illustrate that we have both sensory impressions and intuitive impressions and that they are very similar in that they are a kind of "data" that enters our brain/minds and which is instantly turned into a feeling or sense perception, and such an impression is not of what is IN the world as much as our.... IMPRESSION of what supposedly is in the world.

So scientifically we might say that photons strike a  surface, some of which are absorbed and others reflected, and enter the eye and our retina/brain turns them into "impressions" of a red car driving through a mountain forest.

Similarly we have "gut reactions" to a growling animal outside the tent at night- giving us an impression of possible danger, or at least something to be investigated.

I would argue similarly that we can receive impressions in the LDS sense of "spiritual experiences", or "spiritual impressions"  which I also have been privileged to receive many times in my life.

In all these cases, we have certainty of the impression- that there really IS a red car in a green forest, or an animal outside the tent, or that perhaps God wants us to do or not do something.

These impressions are what make up our reality.

For all practical purposes impressions ARE reality- we can know nothing else.

We pool those impressions through language and some we call "science" and others we call "religion" because some are about what gives meaning to our lives and others about about useful "facts" to make a motor run or launch a space vehicle.

But it is important to realize that the bottom line is that they are OUR impressions of reality- not reality in itself.

We see through a glass darkly but some day face to face. 

We just need to remember that one impression is as good as another but have different purposes.  Religious impressions give us meaning in our lives and sense perceptions help us "make things go" and make life easier.

And again quoting Galileo, one kind tells us how to go to heaven and others tell us how the heavens go.

See also my siggy below for a little more philosophical approach

Using “impressions” to describe information that seems to come from non-sensory sources is good, but I think may be too limited for what I’m trying to describe.

But I like the rabbit/duck metaphor.  You could also refer to dogs as another example of how reality can be perceived differently.  Dogs live largely in an olfactory world.  Tough for us to imagine how dogs sort out and process their incredible perception of smells, for instance. 

But these examples, in themselves, simply point to how we, compared to ducks, rabbits and dogs, are wired neurally.  And just referring to impressions, per se, seems to ignore this neural processing and the mechanisms it uses to integrate sensory data into something usable and meaningful. 

I rather equate this background processing with what is commonly called the subconscious.  It's kind of like a high-speed, powerful microchip, which I think, in and of itself can come up w/highly meaningful impressions, which aren't necessarily taking input from the numinous, timeless realm. 

And data from this realm isn't necessarily limited to 'impressions'.  Two manifestations come to mind: 

One would be visionary experiences, which may include both visual and auditory manifestations, and which are far from being simple impressions, especially when they come unbidden, suddenly and vividly, and more commonly manifesting in the mind's eye very much like a video.  Another is where two or more threads of activity from different persons or external events might coalesce into something highly meaningful to the individual experiencing them, and waaaay beyond the probability of them happening together and in the meaningful context of the one experiencing them.  This is more of a 'recognition' by the experiencer than an impression.  I may not be explaining this very well. 

 

 

Edited August 4, 2019 by blarsen