Shout out to RenegadeofPhunk!!!

[_Ray A]

You cannot accept this principle - that people may genuinely believe that they have reliable information that proves the claims of the church are fraudulent and may speak out due to a perceived moral obligation - and at the same time accept and publicize your generalizations and accusations about exmormons who attack the church as you have on this thread.

If you can logically and reasonably explain how you can hold such opposing, contradictory ideas at the same time, please share.

It's easy, beastie. I think Metcalfe and Vogel share your opinion on the Book of Mormon. Do you see them indulging in personal insults? Do you see them ridiculing Mormons? You have chosen to come here and indulge in some of that ridicule. I am perfectly fine with Vogel and Metcalfe, and have read many of their writings. The exmos in places like RFM are hardly objective, and there's a difference between exercising a "moral obligation", and vicious attacks on the character of people.
They are embittered, and it's easy to see that. I am attacking the attackers. And I have been viciously attacked in the past when all I did was state what my beliefs were. I'm not a pussy, and I have often responded to those attacks in kind.

You don't seem to understand that for many this goes way beyond "moral obligation". It becomes personal, insulting, and nasty, and that is what I am responding to, not the right of people to exercise what they feel is a moral obligation. How far does "moral obligation" go? To defamation and slander? What about the rights of believers? They believe, and feel they have a moral obligation to share what they believe. So if we're going to fulfill the "can't we all get along" line from Runtu, I say to the exmos - STOP the defamation and slander!

I sat here for months and watched this slanderous charade, as tolerant as I could be. When Dan posted his "Signs of Recovery" thread, that was when I felt I had to say something.

When Orson Pratt said that the Book of Mormon should be "exposed" if it's a fraud, I'm sure he had no idea that places like RFM would come into existence. If this is how people expose a fraud, then I would rather dwell with those who believe the fraud. There is more to the Book of Mormon than archaeology or even history, and most of the believers keep saying this. The most recent I read was Orson Scott Card. If they believe "it will all work out", they have that right, with their message of the Book of Mormon. I am totally convinced that the Book of Mormon is a serious warning to modern civilisation, and we are going the way it predicted! With greed and materialism in particular. This was also Nibley's hobby horse. That's why your "moral obligation" means nothing to me, at least.

[_beastie]

You have chosen to come here and indulge in some of that ridicule.

Prove it.

The only person I ever recall ridiculing is Wade, when he was acting like the person of Wade was some organized "anti-bigotry" organization, and I ridiculed him for the reason that his history of cloaking his own personal attacks under the guise of righteousness, or whatever his current hobby is, is abundantly clear. That ridicule had nothing to do with Wade's religion, and had to do with Wade's hobby of creating "organizations" and then using that "organization" as an excuse to personally attack people who disagree with his beliefs or who accept their own homosexuality.

So I would like to know just what you consider the "ridicule" that I have engaged in.

The exmos in places like RFM are hardly objective, and there's a difference between exercising a "moral obligation", and vicious attacks on the character of people.

Again, a gross over-generalization. Just like there are some believers, like Pahoran, and now you, who "specialize" in personal attacks, so there are some exmormons who do so as well. But the majority of posters on either side do not engage in this behavior, and it is not fair to lump them all in one pile. Yet lumping them all in one pile is what critics of RFM almost always do. You, or others who harp on it constantly, claim that you're not so obsessed that you're constantly reading threads over there, and yet, at the same time, you claim that you're qualified to make generalizations about the posters. If I wanted to do a search specific for offensive or stupid things that believers say, do you doubt for one minute that I would succeed? Then I could string them together and act as if this justified over-generalizing.

You don't seem to understand that for many this goes way beyond "moral obligation". It becomes personal, insulting, and nasty, and that is what I am responding to, not the right of people to exercise what they feel is a moral obligation. How far does "moral obligation" go? To defamation and slander? What about the rights of believers? They believe, and feel they have a moral obligation to share what they believe. So if we're going to fulfill the "can't we all get along" line from Runtu, I say to the exmos - STOP the defamation and slander!

I certainly do understand. What you clearly do not understand is that my point has never been that there does not exist personal, insulting and nasty exmormon statements, but to point out there there also exist personal, insulting, and nasty Mormon statements. You have conceded this point long ago. And yet you still persist in behaving as if the problem were on one side only, and when the obvious is pointed out, you say exmormons should "wear it", while you perceive yourself as justified in labeling "angry exmormons" as evil, blahblahblahallyourmanypejorativesblahblahblah.

When Orson Pratt said that the Book of Mormon should be "exposed" if it's a fraud, I'm sure he had no idea that places like RFM would come into existence.

Oh, PLEASE. Orson Pratt lived during a time when there really was active, organized, violent persecution of LDS. And you're going to pretend that RFM so far surpasses that that Orson would never had made such a statement if only he could see the creation of RFM??? He lived during a time when the mainstream press was quite orchestrated in its opposition to Mormonism, during a time of state-mandated "extermination" orders. But the horrors of RFM would make him eat his words?

This is nothing but histrionics, the same histrionics that resulted in your "Luther/Nazi" posts.

That's why your "moral obligation" means nothing to me, at least.

Then you don't agree with Orson, do you?

[_Ray A]

You have chosen to come here and indulge in some of that ridicule.

Prove it.

I think there is some ridicule in this post:

Ok, here's my contribution:

Hey, how about the horses were really teeny tiny dainty little things that were kept as pets by the elites? The chariots were actually used to TRANSPORT those horses, who daintily rode on top while the Maya pulled.

Naw, that's so crazy no one would ever fall for it.

:O

Scholars don't write like that. Satirists do. I know you don't claim to be a scholar. Fortunately David Bokovoy stepped in, unexpectedly, and your tone changed. David made some good contributions. You underestimate the Book of Mormon. You think that because dirt archaeology doesn't support it it's a write off, right? Very narrow view, and David explained why very eloquently. So admit it, beastie, you have some sense of scorn towards the Book of Mormon, and you believe it's a fraud. This goes well beyond the pseudepigrapha idea.

My time is limited now, so can't reply to the rest of your post until later.

[_beastie]

That's the ridicule? Oh my.

You did read the thread on MAD that started this one? Is Don Bradley also an evil, angry exmormon? How about Severian?

If that is the standard you're going to use, well, then, my bank of Mormon bad behavior just geometrically escalated.

[_beastie]

David never did answer my question, by the way. Maybe you can step up to the bat and explain how his example helps the Book of Mormon under either translation paradigm. So far, my underestimation is not being seriously challenged.

[_Ray A]

That's the ridicule? Oh my.

You did read the thread on MAD that started this one? Is Don Bradley also an evil, angry exmormon? How about Severian?

If that is the standard you're going to use, well, then, my bank of Mormon bad behavior just geometrically escalated.

No, I don't think Don is an evil, angry ex-Mormon. He has been known to blow up at times, too, however. So has The Dude, when he called Bill Hamblin a "huge jerk". (I believe it was Bill)

I have seen the thread, but did not read it all. Don's analyses seem reasonable. Apparently he's able to "tolerate" TBMs without getting uptight about the fact that they are so blindly devoted to a fraud.

[_beastie]

If you do not consider Don an evil, angry exmormon, you are going to have to toughen your standards for ridicule, because this was one of his comments on the thread:

One quick correction: I believe the chariots were pulled by those unmentioned creatures generally known to LDS apologists as "others," and occasionally by the also-unmentioned surviving Jaredites. To facilitate their chariot-pulling the Jaredites gradually evolved very large feet and a thick fur to shield them from the sting of whips. They now live in the wilds of Canada, where they are rarely seen doing anything but making plaster casts of their own tracks. They subsist entirely on a diet of wheels.

Don

You are just going to have to face facts, Ray. Some arguments are so patently ridiculous that they will be ridiculed even by the most sensible of people.

[_Ray A]

If you do not consider Don an evil, angry exmormon, you are going to have to toughen your standards for ridicule, because this was one of his comments on the thread:

One quick correction: I believe the chariots were pulled by those unmentioned creatures generally known to LDS apologists as "others," and occasionally by the also-unmentioned surviving Jaredites. To facilitate their chariot-pulling the Jaredites gradually evolved very large feet and a thick fur to shield them from the sting of whips. They now live in the wilds of Canada, where they are rarely seen doing anything but making plaster casts of their own tracks. They subsist entirely on a diet of wheels.

Don

You are just going to have to face facts, Ray. Some arguments are so patently ridiculous that they will be ridiculed even by the most sensible of people.

I believe Don's ridicule there is out of place.

[_beastie]

I believe Don's ridicule there is out of place.

Oh, but mine here is.

I should have known that would be your "standard".

[_Ray A]

Again, a gross over-generalization. Just like there are some believers, like Pahoran, and now you, who "specialize" in personal attacks, so there are some exmormons who do so as well. But the majority of posters on either side do not engage in this behavior, and it is not fair to lump them all in one pile. Yet lumping them all in one pile is what critics of RFM almost always do. You, or others who harp on it constantly, claim that you're not so obsessed that you're constantly reading threads over there, and yet, at the same time, you claim that you're qualified to make generalizations about the posters. If I wanted to do a search specific for offensive or stupid things that believers say, do you doubt for one minute that I would succeed? Then I could string them together and act as if this justified over-generalizing.

Sure, you mean like this?:

Oh, and by the way, for those of you shocked that Ray called me a b****, you obviously have not read the thread in question (shout out to renegade). That is just one of many vulgarities and personal attacks Ray has launched at me and others. His behavior has gone beyond anything I have ever previously witnessed, on any board. His behavior is irrational and frightening.

Thank god I don't use my real name on the internet. Ray is exactly the type of person I would NOT want knowing that information.

My behaviour is "irrational and frightening" and the behaviour of RFMers is not. They are just "venting". Beastie has never said, anywhere, to my knowledge, that RFM behaviour is "irrational and frightening". It's only when an "apologist" calls her a B**** it becomes frightening.

Looks like my "demo" did work after all. The double standards are hypocritically obvious.