I am not participating in any threads except those where I'm being stabbed in the back. It is Dan's and Juliann's choice not to post here, even though they are being criticised. But if you continue to run with this ball, I will reply to you.
I will keep that in mind. The cesspool must not be all that bad after all, eh?
I believe it is a good thing to listen to one's intuition. It is my intuitions which influence me. Sometimes I'm wrong, but most of the time they serve me well. Quite often I will "sense" something about my children, for example, and nine out of ten times I am right. I don't want to be like you - following pure hard logic and ignoring your emotions and intuition. Now the Book of Mormon, for you, was all "in the brain". In this regard we are very different.
Well, this is a typical strategy. You're following the lead of apologists who pretend that critics who state that feelings are not an adequate basis for making judgments concerning the validity of certain truth claims, such as "was there once a group of Judeo Christians living in ancient Mesoamerica?" are really saying that feelings are worthless in general.
There's nothing wrong with intuition or feelings. You have created a strawman. I said that you change your reasoning in response to your feelings about the individuals making the arguments. If they've hurt your feelings, you switch sides. That isn't intuition.
You've contradicted yourself here too. In one thread, in fact on the same page, you said you have "no intention" of bothering the Church, then a few posts later you were calling for change. You want change, you want the bigotry to stop, and you are a crusader for change in that regard.
I explained myself in that thread. But aside from that, it's interesting that you seem to equate calling for bigotry to stop with "destroying" the church. No, it's not interesting, I take that back. It's bizarre.
If you drop your generalisations about my views, and actually read, and understand, what I said on your thread about me, then I will drop my generalisations.
I quoted your exact statements from the thread, Ray, I didn't paraphrase or generalize.
And no, as long as you keep making these sort of statements and then accuse exmormons of engaging in vile hate speech, if I happen to be around reading the thread, I will continue to comment on your hypocrisy. It's easy to spot your hypocrisy in this regard by altering your own words, which I did on this thread. If an exmormon had said this:
An angry mo is a restless and disgruntled soul who can't find rest. Like a barnacle that attaches to a boat it wants to sink because it's jealous the boat is sailing with full strength while its own anchor keeps it tied to the ocean floor, sinking deeper and deeper. Is there any more pathetic a sight then one who seeks to destroy those who left their faith, all the while trying to convince others to leave their own faiths for Mormonism? They bite the hand that was once its brother. Like traitors sucking on blood, they lust after any blood left in those who no longer believe.
You'd be using it as an example of vile hate speech that will engender future violence.
Noel has frequently taken digs at me, especially on FAIR, and then later on MAD. You don't know our history of contention, and it goes back a long way. The "hypocrisy" stems from your ignorance of our disputes. You didn't even see his thread here, so how would you know anything about our long time tensions?
Jeez, Ray. Wake up. The exmormons taking digs at Mormons are doing it because of their own history of contention with those people. Are you ignorant of those disputes? Some of them have been discussed quite a bit on this board. You have no idea what kind of history exmormons have with the apologists they now "dig", do you? Do you see how Juliann treated Maggie Mormon on MAD? She has established that sort of history many times over. I haven't had as many interactions with DCP to make the same statement, but I would imagine it's true. Do you really think that the snide, dismissive, often outright rude behavior of "notable" apologists towards critics and even wavering believers like Maggie doesn't have consequences?
This is just like the thread where I demonstrated the institutionalized bigotry of the LDS church and explain how this begins the cycle. You more or less shrug your shoulders and insist it will never change and then hypocritically focus only on one side of the cycle.
No, it's not better at all, and it seems that you are the one now concluding "facts" through your emotions.
For heaven's sake, Ray, was someone else posting under your screen name? You repeatedly compared exmormons to Luther.
I had been gone a very short time when you couldn't resist launching salvos at me. Your comments were sarcastic and no worse than anything I've said about Noel.
And which one of us is demanding that Shades not let the defamation stand? Which one of us is acting like this sort of rhetoric will result in actual acts of violence?
The difference between us, Ray, is not that I behave and you don't. The difference is that I am able to put these sort of interactions in perspective, and don't go off on rants about how Mormons are going to encourage acts of violence against apostates because we're minions of satan.
I was viciously attacked by believers on ARM, back when I first went there. One even said I was a mentally ill liar for saying that, as a Mormon believer, I had read and believed that Heavenly Father had physical relations with Mary to conceive Jesus. That's why I stopped participating there. The level of hyperbole was ridiculous, the ratio of signal to noise far too low to make it worthwhile. But I have never blown it out of proportion and pretended the way I was treated on ARM by believers, and on RFM by some exmormons, is a sign that Mormons are inciting hatred against apostates which will eventually end in mass acts of violence against us.