? for Ray A

[_beastie]

Thanks, Seven, that is pretty much what I had remembered.

[_KimberlyAnn]

”I'm not excusing his pompous diatribes or attacks on ex-Mormons or his twisting of church history and bizarre Kantian relativist leanings, but still, I feel sorry for him.” (Kimberly Ann [on the "Recovery" board, 26 December 2006], regarding Daniel Peterson)

This is actually expressing some sympathy....

“Maybe I have issues of my own that make me take pity on the most despicable of people, but I really do feel for Mr. Peterson.” -- Kimberly Ann, "Recovery" board, 26 December 2006

This is sympathy, not hate....

Thank you, Mr. Scratch. Those statements were taken out of context by Mr. Peterson, and you're right, they were expressing sympathy, as was the entire post from which they were extracted. In context, is was obvious that I wasn't referring to Mr. Peterson as despicable. In that particular post, I mentioned how I believed Daniel Peterson wasn't at all an idiot, as he is often portrayed on RfM. There had been claims made that he wasn't really a believer, but only defended Mormonism because his livelihood depended on it. Much of my post was in defense of Mr. Peterson, and stated that there was no cause for anyone to assume he was defending a belief system in which he himself didn't believe. I know I specifically called him an intelligent man. Funny how that statement didn't make it onto his tagline.

I do not at all hate Daniel Peterson and wish him no ill will whatsoever. I do wish he, and every other Latter-day Saint, would figure out Mormonism is a fraud.

KA

[_Mister Scratch]

”I'm not excusing his pompous diatribes or attacks on ex-Mormons or his twisting of church history and bizarre Kantian relativist leanings, but still, I feel sorry for him.” (Kimberly Ann [on the "Recovery" board, 26 December 2006], regarding Daniel Peterson)

This is actually expressing some sympathy....

“Maybe I have issues of my own that make me take pity on the most despicable of people, but I really do feel for Mr. Peterson.” -- Kimberly Ann, "Recovery" board, 26 December 2006

This is sympathy, not hate....

Thank you, Mr. Scratch. Those statements were taken out of context by Mr. Peterson, and you're right, they were expressing sympathy, as was the entire post from which they were extracted. In context, is was obvious that I wasn't referring to Mr. Peterson as despicable. In that particular post, I mentioned how I believed Daniel Peterson wasn't at all an idiot, as he is often portrayed on RfM. There had been claims made that he wasn't really a believer, but only defended Mormonism because his livelihood depended on it. Much of my post was in defense of Mr. Peterson, and stated that there was no cause for anyone to assume he was defending a belief system in which he himself didn't believe. I know I specifically called him an intelligent man. Funny how that statement didn't make it onto his tagline.

You are so right. There are quite a few people critical of Mormonism who say nice things about the Good Professor, and yet he never acknowledges any of it, nor does he ever seem to have anything nice to say about any critics. (Wait, check that---I do remember DCP saying that he thought Tal Bachman was "intelligent.") Basically, it seems that this antipathy that he keys in on and archives is like a kind of emotional "binkie" for him. He needs this negative energy in order to function and justify his activities to himself. Or something like that.

[_cksalmon]

”I'm not excusing his pompous diatribes or attacks on ex-Mormons or his twisting of church history and bizarre Kantian relativist leanings, but still, I feel sorry for him.” (Kimberly Ann [on the "Recovery" board, 26 December 2006], regarding Daniel Peterson)

This is actually expressing some sympathy....

“Maybe I have issues of my own that make me take pity on the most despicable of people, but I really do feel for Mr. Peterson.” -- Kimberly Ann, "Recovery" board, 26 December 2006

This is sympathy, not hate....

Thank you, Mr. Scratch. Those statements were taken out of context by Mr. Peterson, and you're right, they were expressing sympathy, as was the entire post from which they were extracted. In context, is was obvious that I wasn't referring to Mr. Peterson as despicable. In that particular post, I mentioned how I believed Daniel Peterson wasn't at all an idiot, as he is often portrayed on RfM. There had been claims made that he wasn't really a believer, but only defended Mormonism because his livelihood depended on it. Much of my post was in defense of Mr. Peterson, and stated that there was no cause for anyone to assume he was defending a belief system in which he himself didn't believe. I know I specifically called him an intelligent man. Funny how that statement didn't make it onto his tagline.

You are so right. There are quite a few people critical of Mormonism who say nice things about the Good Professor, and yet he never acknowledges any of it, nor does he ever seem to have anything nice to say about any critics. (Wait, check that---I do remember DCP saying that he thought Tal Bachman was "intelligent.") Basically, it seems that this antipathy that he keys in on and archives is like a kind of emotional "binkie" for him. He needs this negative energy in order to function and justify his activities to himself. Or something like that.

In my personal communications with the good Professor (which amounts to a very, very small handful of email exchanges), he has been nothing but kind and magnanimous.

I don't care a whit about his online persona. He's either a guy who's got the real-deal Holyfield truth or one who is severely deluded. I happen to like him. I disagree with about 95% of what he posts. Like him, I think he is either right or wrong. We share at least that much in common.

CKS

[_Ray A]

Huh? No one should ever criticize Mormonism at all? You can't be serious!

It's pointless trying to prove anything to you, Scratch. You have one mission in life: To accuse and denigrate Mormons in any way you can. We still don't know what your personal beliefs are. But inch by inch, post by post, you seek to undermine Mormonism. Anything that makes Mormons look bad is "juicy" to you. Throw it into the mill of MDB for the pirahna to chew on. What I would like to know is whether you are a member of the church, but you're silent on this, and anything to do with your personal life, while chewing up others by scrutinising their lives inside out to bring ridicule on them. If you are a member of the church, then you are in the category of the worst apostates.

I have never seen an informed or balanced criticism of the church come from you. It's always one-sided.

[_Ray A]

Unfortunately, DCP *has* been guilty of "mean spirited" behavior, such as his gossipmongering about Mike Quinn. Also: no calls for violence here.

No, unfortunately you have twisted this whole affair and made Dan an offender for a word. I take him at his word, and he has denied your accusations. No matter what he says you will believe to the contrary, because it makes your blog "more juicy". As they say, never let the facts get in the way of a good gossip story.

[_Ray A]

Hey, I have a great idea, Ray. Here's Mitt Romney's presidential campaign website:

http://www.mittromney.com/

You ought to join up and start communicating with him about this important phenomenon, the Mormon Holocaust in the early stages. It's the only moral thing to do. He might be in a position to do something about it, to stop this burgeoning exmormon Nazi movement.

Beastie, most Americans say, at this stage, that they will not vote for a Mormon president. Why? Because he's, er, Mormon. What is the source of this prejudice? Could it be misinformation about Mormons? Why do the antis and exmos keep dragging up the Mormon past? Who is contributing to this hysteria and negative view of contemporary Mormons? They have condemned "Mormon fundamentalists", they have stopped polygamy, they have rescinded the black ban, yet the antis keep dredging up the past to cast a negative view of Romney.

WHO is responsible for this?

[_Mephitus]

The answer is simple ray. Mormons are. To this day they lie about their past, carefully cover up anything that does not show them in good light, still have institutional racism/sexism, and much more. Let alone that if you want to get into theological issues, most other christian religions think that some of Mormons views on godhood/Christ are more than just a little bit blasphemous.

[_Ray A]

Hmmm, you think that some unstable people might feel justified killing the Nazi wannabes, ie, the bigoted exmormons? Combine that with the linking of us to an "evil spirit", and you might have dynamite in the hands of some nut. Ray, my future death might be on your hands.

Beastie, I think you and I can agree one thing: That religious fundamentalism can be evil. Dig as I might, I can't find anything in modern Mormonism comparable to what I see in Islamic fundamentalism. Mormons don't bomb abortion clinics either. The critics of Mormonism have to continually dredge up Mountain Meadows, while conveniently ignoring Haun's Mill. While conveniently ignoring the fact that Joseph Smith was murdered in Carthage. I have never said there will be a "Mormon holocaust", though in the future anything is possible. No one ever thought there would be a Jewish Holocaust. Do you understand why the Germans had such a negative view of Jews? It started with Martin Luther in the 16th century!!

Let me quote from that famous and reliable source known as Wiki (wink):

See also: Martin Luther and the Jews and On the Jews and Their Lies

In his treatise On the Jews and Their Lies, published in 1543 as Von den Juden und ihren Lügen, Luther wrote "set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them… I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed… their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them… their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb… that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials, tradesmen, or the like. Let them stay at home… that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping… I commend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow, as was imposed on the children of Adam…" and recommended that these "poisonous envenomed worms" be forced into labor or expelled "for all time."[41]

There is little doubt among historians that Luther's rhetoric may have contributed to,[42][43][44] or at the very least foreshadowed,[45] the actions of the Nazis when Adolf Hitler came to power in Germany in 1933, although the extent to which it played a direct role in the events leading to the Holocaust is debated. At the heart of the debate is whether it is anachronistic to view Luther's sentiments as an example, or early precursor, of racial anti-Semitism — hatred toward the Jews as a people — rather than anti-Judaism — contempt for Judaism as a religion.

A minority viewpoint disagrees with the attempt to link Luther's work causally to the rise of Nazi anti-Semitism, arguing that it is too simplistic an analysis.[46] Some Lutheran church bodies have distanced themselves from this aspect of Luther's work. In 1983, the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, denounced Luther's "hostile attitude" toward the Jews.[47] In 1994, the Church Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America announced: "As did many of Luther's own companions in the sixteenth century, we reject this violent invective, and yet more do we express our deep and abiding sorrow over its tragic effects on subsequent generations."[48]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther

Remember, Beastie, this was rhetoric from ONE man, one influential man. No one would get away with this kind of language today, but I wonder how many hold similar sentiments towards Mormons?? They may only be a few, but a few is still more than one influential man. I don't think you understand how this kind of rhetoric can inflame passions. And this is what Dan quoted on MAD. Inflammatory rhetoric. To your credit you have distanced yourself from Steven Benson.

The rhetoric of RFM is inflammatory. It is hate-filled. And anyone who condones this in any way, shape or form, is contributing to the public hatred and mistrust of Mormons.

This is what I mean by "you will have blood on your hands".

[_Ray A]

The answer is simple ray. Mormons are. To this day they lie about their past, carefully cover up anything that does not show them in good light, still have institutional racism/sexism, and much more. Let alone that if you want to get into theological issues, most other christian religions think that some of Mormons views on godhood/Christ are more than just a little bit blasphemous.

SH, that your POV. It's not mine. The treatment you received was shameful, and I would be the first to condemn that. There is no "institutional racism" in Mormonism today. There is individual racism, no doubt about that. Have you read President Hinckley's writings? I defy you to show me ONE racist quote anywhere in his writings. Contrarily, you will find that he is appalled by racism.