Now let's see your argument in perspective. Why have you suddenly turned and attacked me for my opinions?
First, I have never supported you making these sort of hyperbolic statements about exmormons, so I have not suddenly turned. This has always been my stance.
Apparently I am not making myself clear. I am not accusing you of changing your basic beliefs or disagreeing solely due to hurt feelings. I am accusing you of switching “sides” in one specific argument, based on whether or not your feelings were hurt by one side in particular. I tried to make this clear with my reference to the Juliann apostasy argument. You certainly seemed to agree with my assessment of Juliann’s use of the Bromley model, yet right on this thread, without any explanation or seeming reason
other than the fact that I have “attacked” you you suddenly switched and began to use Juliann’s terms. You even bolded the word apostate so I would notice. Your response here is talking about something entirely different.
Did I hurt your feelings? Feelings don't matter? Why your campaign to remove bigotry? Someone hurt your feelings? Your whole argument is about - feelings! You are protecting the feelings of exmos. We must pay attention to the feelings of exmos.
Why are you repeating this straw man argument even when I very explicitly debunked it earlier on this thread? I’m not saying feelings are useless or not important, just like exmormons who say feelings are not an adequate methodology to judge the veracity of certain historical claims (ie, did Judeo Christians live in ancient Mesoamerica) are not saying feelings have no value at all. This is one of the sillier apologetic distortions around, and it is tirelessly common.
Yes, Ray, feelings matter. I never said they didn’t. I said you were allowing your hurt feelings to lead your reasoning, as in the Juliann/apostate example I cited above. In regards to this specific argument, you seem to decide “which side is the bad guy” in terms of creating hostile feelings (or even imminent violence) based on which side most recently attacked you.
Why did Scratch start his blog and his constant criticisms of MAD - his feelings were hurt.
I’m glad you finally see this point. Exmormons who focus on particular TBM personalities are normally doing so due to past conflicts with them,
just like you have done with Noel. This is no more a sign of their intent to inflame violence against either these people or Mormons in general than your statements about Noel are a sign of your intent to inflame violence against Noel or exmormons in general.
You seem to understand this with your last statement, so are you going to continue to describe this phenomenon in terms of extreme hyperbole when it occurs on the exmormon side?
Dr. Lawrence Foster had an interesting theory about the Tanners, that their anti-Mormonism stemmed from ostracism by Mormons. So feelings DO matter. I do not switch allegiances because of my feelings all the time. Sometimes I do. If I am attacked by someone my feelings for them will change, isn't that natural? Human? When have I switched allegiances about my stand on the Book of Mormon? I was offended by some radical TBMs on LDS Internet in 2000, through to 2002, and my feelings about the Book of Mormon did not change. On RFM my feelings about the Book of Mormon did not change, and that, in fact, is what got me excommunicated from there. I had some real problems with the Church, which I expressed there, but I did not turn on the Book of Mormon because of that. If I had gone only on feelings I would have disowned the Book of Mormon as well, out of spite. I had some strong exchanges on FAIR with Mormons, and some strong disagreements - but my feelings about Mormons in general did not change! If the whole of MAD were to turn on me, my feelings about the Book of Mormon will not change.
Hopefully I clarified this above.
In another thread you mentioned about the Witnesses being called vile names, like "dumbass" etc. They ALL stood by their belief in the Book of Mormon. Two of them returned to the Church, and Whitmer said that he didn't leave the Church, but the Church left him. They turned on Joseph Smith temporarily, probably because their feelings were hurt for offering criticisms, but they never denied what they saw. I am gulity as charged of being human, and having feelings, but I do not switch my basic allegiances only because of feelings. And my basic allegiance has been to Mormons. Your allegiance has been to exmos. If Dan Peterson sent me an email disowning me, do you think I will turn around and deny the Book of Mormon? If you do, you have another think coming.
Did I clarify this above? I’m talking about, for example, your sudden use of Juliann’s terms on this very thread, when formerly you seem to also conclude she had not been entirely reasonable with the model. Without explanation, suddenly you change your mind.
You object to LDS fundamentalism and made a point of that after your experience with the LDS board. You object to what you perceive to be exmormon fundamentalism and proceed to create extremist hyperbolic statements about their characters, intents, and “Luther-like” qualities.
I'll say some more on this. I have been critical of both exmos and Mormons, over the last seven years on the Net. My criticisms of exmos have been far more severe. I have empathy for some exmo causes, but I believe they have and are doing long-term damage by their responses. Okay, so the Church is "bigoted" in response to exmos. How do we solve this problem? For a start I don't see a solution, because it would deny the very foundational premises of Mormonism. The comment you quoted was when, I think Joseph Smith, said that "Oliver Cowdery had no other dumb ass to ride than David Whitmer". It is true that reputations were blackened. Apostates were not treated with civility, but when they returned they were welcomed, like William Clayton. Joseph Smith freely forgave anyone who came back, and Clayton's case is one of the best examples. This is not a compromising religion in regard to basic truth claims. Well you're going to be shocked when I say - wear it. This is a simple fact about Mormonism. They are 100% convinced they have the truth. Can you expect them to react any differently?
You seem to be saying that to NOT attack apostates would be the equivalent of denying their own beliefs. Once again, you assert that this is such a fundamental part of Mormonism there is no way it will ever change. You may be right. However, why in the world would you expect exmormons to simply “wear it”, and then proceed to vilify them when they get testy and lash out?
(skipping the part I think I already addressed re: switching sides)
Almost as bizarre as your equating my concern about possible violence with exmos being Nazis. The possible violence I referred to was like what happened in Virginia. All it takes is ONE disgruntled lunatic to kill people, and I said this in my replies to you! It is also not out of the question that in the future Mormons will be treated like Jews, and they may need to form their own anti-defamation leagues. There is so much distortion and angry exmo hatred against Mormons that this is of REAL concern to me, and no one can really forsee the consequences. The fact that a Mormon is running for president means zilch! Jews have long been prominent in world affairs, but this has not stopped anti-Semitism. I know of an Australian Rabbi who was bashed to death in America because he was - Jewish, and a Rabbi.
Ray – you are trying to create a cause/effect relationship between the actions of a very mentally ill individual and mean things people say to each other. This is a very complex situation that cannot be so simplified. Moreover, I have repeatedly addressed this assertion by pointing to the fact that Mormons have institutionalized bigotry against exmormons and their leaders openly associate them with satan. Do you really think a mentally ill LDS fanatic wouldn’t be just as inclined to engage in acts of violence?
Of course many things can set off a mentally ill person with access to guns, and the result is tragedy. But this phenomenon is not restricted to any one group in particular. A Mormon could go off as easily as an exmormon. Do you deny this? If you do not, then you should be just as concerned about the institutionalized bigotry in Mormonism as you are about RFMers saying mean things about DCP. We bleed, too, you know.
Perhaps exmormons will have to form their own anti-defamation leagues, too, particularly in LDS enclaves like Utah and Idaho. This argument “anything is possible” is pointless.
I stand by that statement. The angry exmo is a leech. And you are now defending them! Are you, by chance, an angry exmo in disguise? I hope not, especially since you wanted to dissociate from RFM.
I know you stand by the statement. You are not answering my question, so I will try again.
Would you object to this statement and even point to it as the type of rhetoric you believe could set off a disgruntled exmormon and incite him to acts of violence? Please answer this question.
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.
by the way, I think it’s silly to make generalizations about some vague group whose membership has been determined by incredibly subjective judgments openly influenced by personal bias. So when you talk about some group of “angry exmormons”, I don’t know who you are talking about.
Juliann was critical of Maggie because she felt her criticisms were overboard. Not temperate, but overboard. MAD is not the place to atom bomb your ward. Maybe because Maggie is a novice she doesn't realise this. She should have referred posters to her blog only, and respected that Mormons on MAD don't want to continually hear her gripes. These are issues every individual has to "deal with". I think what Juliann was concerned about is that Maggie seems to be in some kind of transition, and Juliann has seen, too often, such people become angry exmos, after professing love and tolerance for Mormons. The "slippery slope". They go from mild critics to outright anti-Mormons. I don't think Juliann would have had a problem with Maggie, if she had not voiced so many criticisms. You tire of my criticisms of exmos, don't you? Turn the tables, beastie, and try to understand how Juliann feels in this regard. You fume and fret about my criticisms of exmos, but you expect Maggie to have full reign on MAD to light a fuse on her ward?
I have said this repeatedly, and you seem to ignore it. Yes, Ray, there is bad behavior on both sides. You missed my entire point.
My point is that the exmormons who focus on specific TBMs like DCP or Juliann are usually doing so because of their past contentions with that individual – like you and Noel. I brought up Maggie to demonstrate my point. I’m not interested in discussing whether she was right or wrong to air her concerns, or whether Juliann was right or wrong to attack her. I am pointing out that there is history between individuals, and you use history as an explanation and justification
for your own behavior but refuse to consider it as an explanation and justification
for the very similar behavior of exmormons. And you focus on - the exmo side?
You are ignoring why I brought up the institutionalized bigotry of the LDS church – it is to demonstrate the fallacious nature of the TBM claim that they are justified in
their anger and sometimes outright attacks on exmormon critics because exmormons started it first by attacking their religion. I made this point quite clear in my thread, and you are ignoring it and distorting my stated purpose.
This is a link to the thread Ray keeps referencing:
http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... php?t=1426 Luther, yes, not Nazis. Luther's hate speech against Jews is the same as angry exmo hate speech against Mormons. They are "charlatans", "liars", "deceivers", seeking to "dominate the world", and controlling the world's finances. Where is all of this irrational hatred going? Which lunatic, in future, will latch on to this and take a gun to innocent Mormons? This is what I meant by saying, "you will have blood on your hands".
I have no idea why you objected to my characterization of your argument, since have basically said the same thing I said.
Aside from that, where is all this irrational hatred of exmormons going? You know, the irrational hatred that is actually taught by Mormonism’s most respected and revered leaders? The kind that is espoused right over the pulpit in the name of Jesus Christ? Which lunatic, in the future, will latch on to this and take a gun to innocent exmormons?
And how many times do I have to repeat this before you recognize my point?
Speak for yourself. I will depart from my counter-attacks and say I think you have the capability to be a very fair-minded person. I have always respected your intelligence, and still do. I really think you underestimate your fellow exmos. Or maybe over-rate their ability to reason properly. When you said you were done with RFM my opinion of you rose a few notches. You may think I'm engaging in offensive talk, but I really don't think you've seen the "true colours" of the people you defend. You really, naïvely think they will be as rational as you are. You completely, entirely, underestimate they capability for more evil against Mormons, more than just words. And if you continue to defend them, I will oppose you.
And I’ve always admired your determination to be true to your beliefs and to consider alternative interpretations of beliefs. (beliefs, not side on a particular argument, which I’ve noted you tend to change)
I’m just arguing this one specific point with you, because I think you are wrong. I think you are behaving just as poorly as the people you compare to Luther, and you are demanding that exmormons just “wear” the type of nonsense that you think is Luther-like when it comes from exmormons.
Every time this conversation has come up, I have explained that I’m not defending anyone’s bad behavior. I stood up to the bad behavior of Cabbie and Benson and now I’m standing up to your bad behavior. Your rhetoric is not so different from theirs, on this point. You just are on the other side. Cabbie, Benson, and you are engaging in extreme hyperbole that has little point other than to inflame.
Are you entirely naïve to believe that Mormons are somehow immune to acts of evil and violence?
"Us"? Who is "us"? Again you don't differentiate. Are Cabbie and Benson one of "us"? You dislike the extremes in exmos as much as I dislike the extremes in "TBMs". The difference is that my allegiance lies with Mormonism, yours with ex-Mormonism. And I tolerate extreme views in Mormons just like you tolerate extreme views in exmos. We all have our biases, I guess.
Why should I differentiate when you don’t? I was trying to create your mirror argument. You take examples like on this board – people saying DCP is a gossip – and use this as an example of Luther-like bigotry? Give me a freaking break, Ray. Scratch is no Cabbie or Benson, and neither is Rollo.
And if, by chance, you wonder why I insist that Rollo nor Scratch is a Benson or Cabbie, consider this:
I can well imagine Cabbie or Benson saying things like 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.
As I can imagine them linking Mormons to Nazis or Luther.
But out of Rollo, Scratch and you, only one of you has engaged in such behavior, as far as I know. This is exactly why I am being so critical of you, in regards to this point.