Reformed Mormon

I really don’t like doing this because I have a deep respect for Catholicism…. But are twitter Catholics really in a position to lecture Latter-day Saints on perceived sexual improprieties from the 1800s considering much more recent events? ———- (From a friends post) The Roman Catholic abuse crisis is one of the most horrifying institutional scandals in religious history. Children being raped, molested, groomed, threatened, silenced, and spiritually manipulated by men they were taught to trust as representatives of God. Bishops and Church officials who knew abuse had happened and still reassigned priests. Who protected the institution’s reputation over children’s safety. Who used secrecy, legal pressure, shame, and delay to avoid accountability. In France alone, an independent investigation estimated that 216,000 children were abused by Catholic clergy since 1950. When lay workers connected to the Church were included, the estimate rose to about 330,000 victims. It was a catastrophic moral failure involving abuse, cover-up, cowardice, institutional self-protection, and the betrayal of children on a mass scale. (Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. (2009). The report of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. Government of Ireland. gov.ie/en/department-… (gov.ie/en/department-…))

Here’s what happened with the debate situation. I’m happy to release the emails if the involved parties claim I’ve misrepresented anything. @CapturingChrist @emuse1955 The original invitation from Cameron was for me to debate Ethan on whether Joseph Smith was a false prophet. Ethan then clarified that he wanted to focus on Joseph’s moral character and the moral circumstances of his revelations. I suggested we debate whether a naturalistic explanation for the Book of Mormon was plausible. Ethan responded that he already agrees the Book of Mormon is not naturalistically explicable. He thinks it was “preternatural,” and later clarified that his position would be that a malevolent entity better explains the Book of Mormon than God. He continued pressing for a debate on Joseph’s moral character. I said I would do that debate if we also compared Joseph’s moral character/actions with the moral character/actions of Catholic leadership throughout history. Ethan declined that topic and suggested we compare Joseph’s character to specific individuals he had in mind from his faith tradition. I responded by asserting that the whole moral character of Catholic leadership would be relevant. Ethan then proposed: “Is the moral character of Joseph Smith a bigger problem for Mormonism than the moral character of historical popes is for Catholicism?” I responded by saying I would prefer to debate the Book of Mormon prompt. I believed I had made it clear that the character arguments on both sides were going to be set aside. I later realized that was not the case. We came to the resolution: “The Book of Mormon is inspired of God, rather than the devil” Ethan agreed, and we set a day and time. Throughout that day, I began looking through Ethan’s X posts to better understand him and his position, since I had first heard of him only a few days earlier. As I did, I realized the debate was likely going to become the original Joseph Smith character debate repackaged under a Book of Mormon title. The next morning, I emailed and asked for two things: first, to push the debate back a month because of my schedule leading up to the original date; and second, to have a discussion with Ethan beforehand so we could better understand each other’s positions before the debate and prepare accordingly. I made it clear that I was not asking for a word-for-word preview of his opening statement. I also made it clear that I would share my position openly. Both requests were declined. I believe the best debates happen when both parties understand the other person’s position, rather than when either side is hoping to surprise the other with a “slam dunk.” I also think it’s both irresponsible and unwise to enter into a debate before you actually understand the position of the person you’re debating. I think I made that mistake and take full responsibility for doing so. I then posted an apology for accepting too quickly before the angle and scope of the debate were clear. I do not apologize for wanting to better understand my opponent’s position before jumping into a debate with him. And given how the situation has been framed since then, I’m confident I made the right decision. Okay, enough online drama for today. Go touch grass, everyone lol.