Ray A gets away with murder on MADB

[_CaliforniaKid]

Over on MADB Ray A has started a pyschoanalyze-and-stereotype-the-entire-exmo-population thread. I hate these kinds of threads; they almost always involve some self-righteous person sharing his/her sibylline insight into the dark workings of his/her opponents' hearts. In a fine display of oracular ecstasy, Ray A pulls back the veil and reveals to our spiritual eyes the eternal truth: that the reason all exmormons are "angry" and unable to leave the church alone is that, deep down inside, they still believe the church is true. That, or maybe they were just too pharisaical in the first place. Exhibit A, from Ray's OP:

[SNIP]
I just want to ask one question: Why are exmos so obsessed with Mormonism? Can't get rid of your residual beliefs? Too much time on your hands? Want to prove something which will save the world from "religious fanaticism"?

What I don't get is this: Exmos say they've found true happiness out of Mormonism, a peace and serenity they never found within the confines of "the cult" , yet they have to come back to stab Mormonism in the back, to get rid of the "fundamentalist obsession" which is a "grave threat" to the world. On the one hand they argue that Mormonism is insignificant, irrelevant, yet they act as if it's threat. A threat to what?

I conjecture that many exmos on the net are the same obsessive types that would be "Pharisees" if they were still active Mormons.

[SNIP]
I'm calling a spade a spade, here. Exmos, antis, critics, what motivates you? Why are you so obsessed with the religion you once belonged to? If I was a true unbeliever I would not waste my time. There are too many beautiful things in life to be obsessed with my former religion.

So exmos, share your thoughts.

Does it occur to you that the severe reaction by exmos does, in a way, prove that there is something very powerful about Mormomism?

[SNIP]
Thanks in advance for the replies, exmos. (I still think some of you have doubts, wavering, and residual beliefs you just can't get out of your system, and you need to purge that by coming on LDS boards. It's a glaring truth to me, even when you fervently deny it.)

Sethbag gives the obvious response:

Ray A: My wife is still at least a mostly-believer. My daughter's being raised LDS. Most of my in-laws are believing LDS. My three siblings are all TBM, as are their spouses, and as they are raising their kids. My parents are still TBM. I'm still expected by my wife to go to at least sacrament meeting each Sunday, and I go. All of my mother's family going back two generations are LDS, and on my father's side, going back to at least coming across the plains to SLC from Nauvoo. You know that guy, Francis Webster, who is always quoted in Conference and other talks as the guy who could only push his handcart to the next tree and then he'd give up, except when he got there the handcart started pushing him? That was my great-great-grandfater.

I'm still, as it were, attached at the hip to Mormonism. Please excuse me if I spend a little time talking about it here in this virtual online world, when it's still such a very large part of my life.

Yes, if it were up to me, I'd get my family out, my in-laws out, my own parents and siblings, and cousins, and aunts and uncles, and grandmothers, and everyone else out too, and leave Mormonism behind for good and you'd probably never see me again on this board. Until that day comes, and I'm still compelled to keep Mormonism a part of my life, I'm going to talk about it from time to time on boards like this. You got a problem with that?

Ray A does have a problem with that, apparently:

Don't use your ancestors to justify your apostasy.

Yes, I do. You want them to think like you. Having now found the "one and only truth" you want them to see it like you do. Right? See my OP. You and others are on a "oh so righteous mission" to reclaim Mormons from "delusion". You have my sincere scorn.

...

Don't kid yourself. You'd be here whining, whinging and moaning about Mormonism even if all of your kin were out. And why do you want to get them "out"? What if they've had spiritual manifestations which super cede your nihilistic gloom and doom?

When Ray is chastised by a TBM named "myleague" for ridiculing his opponent, he replies:

They deserve all the ridicule they get. After all, do they ridicule Mormonism?

And when asked whether he was talking about all exmos or only the angry ones, he informs us,

Sometimes I find it difficult to define the difference. Some of the angriest exmos have portrayed themselves as "objective', and "balanced", so I'm now in a position where I can't trust any of them.
...
These days you can't tell. Sometimes the placid smooth-talker can be as much an angry exmo, living in total denial.

Credit goes to Renegade of Phunk, selek, Her Amun, and Tarski for defending Sethbag against Ray's vituperation.

Of course, it doesn't take long for someone to point out Ray's hypocrisy, since he himself is an exmormon!

I reported one of Ray's posts yesterday, and very frankly gave as the reason for the report, "Ray is being a jackass." That apparently doesn't concern the mods, who ignored Ray's antics but proceeded to tell a poster named Oracle (who apparently posted derogatory remarks about Ray) that

This topic is fair game until you start to talk about other poster's lives in a derogatory way. You will be escorted from the thread if you do that. Talk about beleivers and nonbelievers in general and anybody who takes personal offense at that needs to get out of the thread. ~ MOds

I replied,

So Ray is allowed to talk trash about people as long as he's constructing broad stereotypes rather than singling somebody out? I'm afraid I have to call a spade a spade, and I find this thread offensive.

Selek:

If it bothers you that much, you can always slink back to Shade's board and continue talking about us behind our backs.

And I say this as one who did call on Ray to tone it down a bit.

Me:

I don't talk much about this forum over there. But when I do, I am not "talking about you behind your backs." You are as capable as I am of going over there and reading and responding to threads on that board. You might also be interested to read a thread I started there a while back titled "I love MAD":

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... iann#17917

The reason I love MAD, in fact, is that it is a scholarly venue that filters out all the mud so that I don't have to wade through it. Still, I occasionally do have frustrations about things that go on on this forum, like moderators' preferential treatment of TBM posters (see Ray getting away with murder in the present thread), and in those cases I have taken it over there. The last time I questioned a moderator here, it got me suspended for two days. I wouldn't be surprised if that happens again, in fact.

Speaking of talking behind people's backs, that's exactly what Ray A is doing with this thread. As juliann pointed out, the "angry exmos" that probably sparked Ray's vituperation are the ones he's been interacting with on the aforementioned other board. Most of them are banned from this forum, and can't even view this thread. So I think I will go talk about Ray over there, and anyone who wants to come play in the mud is invited to do so.

So, Ray... you want to talk trash? Here's your invitation: come play in a mud puddle where the targets of your angst have an opportunity to defend themselves!

-CK

[_beastie]

We've already been around and around the mullyberry bush on this one with Ray, and he's made his opinion clear:

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... php?t=1673

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... php?t=1515

Clue to Juliann: The main person contributing sewage on these threads was none other than: Ray.

Ray's point is simple: the church is true, so you exmormons who fight against it are the personification of evil and deserve all the pejoratives people like Ray throw out, and leaders of the church themselves spew over the pulpit. See here for examples:

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... php?t=1426


Besides, I suspect Ray is entertaining himself on this board now as ALITD. He's sworn this site off too many times, only to come right back and throw mud - at some point he must realize he's got to, at least, change screen names and styles.

And of course he'll get away with this on MAD, although a critic who posted the same thing about believers would be banned immediately. He's the Perfect Exmormon - one who doesn't deny the "truth" of the church in general, testifies of the Book of Mormon in particular (although he's not the FUNDAMENTALIST Juliann is who insists the Book of Mormon isn't "true" if it didn't take place in ancient Mesoamerica), and admits he quit the church because he prefers the "pagan lifestyle" and all the pejoratives church leaders spew about apostates is, in fact, true about Ray himself.

I mean really, what more could TBMs ask for? He's like a pretty Christmas package wrapped up in a glittering bow.

[_harmony]

Ray gets as much respect as Pahoran does... none. So what else is new? He's hip deep in his own hypocrisy, and too blind to see himself in the mirror. He's not alone. He's just currently the most vocal.

Well, they have to have someone liven the place up, now that Dan's on hiatus.

[_beastie]

Ray also needs to inform the MADdites that he was the main contributor of sewage on threads he participated on. It is duplicitous to allow those comments about the "sewage" on that post go unclarified as to who it was that was throwing sewage.

Ray asked for "Motivations". I already provided one for him:

Orson Pratt

" this book must be either true or false, if false it is one of the most cunning wicked bold deep-laid impositions ever pawned upon the world. Calculated to deceive and ruin millions who will really receive it as the word of God and suppose themselves securely built upon the rock of truth, until they are plunged with their families into hopeless despair. The nature of the message in the Book of Mormon is such if true no one can possibly be saved and rejected. If false no one can possibly be saved and receive it. If after a rigid examination it be found an imposition it should be extensively published to the world as such the evidences and arguments upon which the imposter was detected should be clearly and logically stated. So that those who have been sincerely yet unfortunately deceived may perceive the nature of the deception and be reclaimed. And that those who continue to publish the delusion may be exposed and silenced by evidences adduced from scripture and reason.”

The motivation is a sense of moral obligation to share what one perceives to be the truth about Mormonism. Both sides share that motivation, they just differ on what constitutes the truth about Mormonism.

Why is this so hard to understand?

[_beastie]

Roger Loomis states something very similar in his essay. I provided a portion of this essay on MAD before in response to this same question about exmormon motivations:

This concept of honoring the religious tradition of your parents is a value that exmormons ostensibly don't espouse. Furthermore, many of them actually go one step further and actively "fight" against the church that they left by trying to make members uncomfortable by exposing various esoteric details of the religion's past. Not only do they disgrace the tradition by leaving it--they go one step further and fight against it. And I think there is some truth to the observation that Mormons are more likely to fight against their church when they leave it then people who leave other faiths. Thus the cliché, "you can leave the church, but you can't leave it alone."

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was founded in the spring of 1830. But the driving value of the church goes back 10 years more. In the spring of 1820, Joseph Smith didn't want to join just any church, but rather wanted to join the right one--the true one. So he studied, meditated, and prayed to find out which church was the true church. I argue that the value of belonging to the "true" church is more fundamental in Mormonism than the Mormon Church itself.

The church was established by people who left the false churches they found themselves in favor of what they believed to be the truth. Throughout the church's history, the sacrifices that Mormons have made for what they believed to be the truth should be held in reverence by all.

And that is what Mormonism is all about.

The church itself isn't a culture that was passed on to us that we pass on to others. It is an expression of what we believe is the fundamental nature of truth and reality. We value the truth so much that one of the main missions of the church to proclaim the gospel to anybody who will listen. We make huge sacrifices to convince the world that we have a better way.

In a sentence, Mormons believe more than anything else that the truth matters. It matters so much that we have to be willing to leave economic well being, friends, family, and even our religious heritage to embrace it. It matters so much that we must leave the comfort of keeping our beliefs private and proclaim them to those who see things differently.

We see then that people who leave the church but don't leave it alone aren't fighting against the culture and ideals in which they were raised. Rather, they are embracing it--they are honoring the integrity of the true believers of the church throughout its history by actively living and preaching the truth that they see.

http://zarahemlacitylimits.com/essays/RogerLoomis1.html

When I shared this section on MAD before, Juliann dismissed it as an... get ready... wait for it... wait for it... "atrocity tale".

[_harmony]

As Light goes, this one is pretty dim.

[_beastie]

Here's Ray's latest comment, which verifies a growing suspicion I've had:

What I'm partly addressing, too, is this comment from Dr. Peterson:

QUOTE
PBS: Clearly some elders do feel intellectuals to be dangerous and a problem, and I'd love [for] you to respond to that famous quote ... [that] there are three dangers in the church: feminists, gays and so-called intellectuals.

Dr. Peterson: Well, as someone who aspires at least to what some call a so-called intellectuality, that sort of worries me sometimes. Frankly, I see the danger, though. There is a danger that intellectuals will set themselves up as the doctrinal authorities in the church and try and supplant the leaders in the church. I think that's an occupational hazard in a way, that we see ourselves often as: We know more, we're brighter, and so let me run things. I know what I'm doing; you don't. (Emphasis added)


Do you really think you know more, and you are brighter? Is this what motivates intellectuals and exmo critics?
"We have it all worked out, let's go steady the Ark."

Ignoring the obvious irony of MAD apologists accusing others of wanting to "run things" in the church, I think Ray tells us what bothers him so much:

"Do you really think you know more, and you are brighter?"

My growing suspicion has been that some TBMs take a personal dislike to exmormon critics due to wounded egos. They believe that exmormons are saying, in so many words, that they are smarter than believers. (some do openly say that, of course - a premise I have always disagreed with since religious belief is unrelated to intelligence) This "insult" digs deep due to some underlying insecurities about some of their arguments. On some level, apologists must know that they've been dealt a weak hand. Which job would you want? Defending Joseph Smith' polyandry or criticizing it? Defending the historicity of the Book of Abraham or Book of Mormon or criticizing it? Apologists are often quite intelligent, and as such, most likely do recognize that some of their arguments are weaker, and the only thing that "pushes" them to "victory" is the spiritual testimony of "truth".

So this dig - "we're smarter than you are" - offends and stings, and they obsess over it.

And Juliann's comment:

That is the point...they sneak in. Anyone wanna take a guess at how many sockpuppets are outted each week? They aren't allowed to act like hyenas here...it annoys you all to no end.

Oh, the irony, the irony.

Act like hyenas??? Don't you mean "act like Ray"?

[_dartagnan]

CK, almost a year ago Ray and I had our major tussle in a similar thread called "What Motivates Anti-Mormons."

Do a search for it and look it over. We dragged our "discussion" over here, but that was lost when the forum crashed in October.

Juliann: This is standard stuff in sociology of religion so I don't think making this a personal attack on Ray is going to help you avoid it.

Kevin: Avoid what? Ray attacked every single former Mormon that is on this forum. Why can’t you see it? Let’s take his paragraph and replace ex-Mormon with Mormon, and tell me if you find these comments offensive:

** Here is what motivates Mormons. They make excuses for their hatred. I think Mormons know the truth, but their tireless endeavors are just puny, worthless efforts to deny what they inwardly know. They will waste their lives in a fruitless cause, and while they may bring temporary "happiness" to those directionless souls lost in the mist of darkness, in the end they will all end up miserable. I am unfazed by Mormons, with their abject stupidity in fighting with their so-called God. Bring your silly arguments, but they mean nothing to me. I have tasted the truth and like what it says, I will go to my grave with that in my heart.**

There is hardly anything Ray said that is supported by sociologists. Please demonstrate where sociologists say apostates:

1) Make excuses for their hatred.
2) That they fight against something as being false when they actually know it is true.
3) That their efforts are “puny worthless efforts to deny what they inwardly know.”
4) That they are wasting “their lives in a fruitless cause.”
5) That they might find happiness but only temporarily.
6) That they are all “souls lost in the mist of darkness” and…
7) “… in the end they will all end up miserable.”

Yes, Ray actually managed to squeeze this many wild assertions within his final paragraph. Now please enlighten us as to which one of these assertions is supported by sociologists. Just one would prove interesting.

.....

Juliann: Your problem is...Ray was asking for theories.

Kevin: Ray did far more than merely ask for theories. He postulated his own theory and managed to called ex-Mormons dishonest because they attack the Church as if they believe it is false, when in fact they really know it is true. That is actually worse that simply calling them dishonest. It implies serious psychological issues are at play, including denial.

Cacheman: Ray stated that he thinks that exmormons are denying what they inwardly know. I don't care if that is standard stuff in sociology. I feel the need to defend myself. I'm sorry if you disagree.

Kevin: Cacheman, you shouldn’t give in so easily. Juliann must be kidding if she thinks sociologists support Ray’s attacks on you and the others here.

Ray responded and here was my response to him:

== Kevin, I'm very disappointed. I really thought you had more insight than that. You twisted everything I said. Let's take a few.

Not nearly as dissappointed I am in you. Your initial post made me want to puke. It is the kind of rhetoric that fueled LDS apologetics in the beginning, but I had hoped we had progressed beyond that point by now.

== Did you read my qualifiers?

There were no qualifiers in your initial post. Nothing was "twisted" as I simply let your post speak for itself.

== Do you realise that nearly everyone here has a less active or exmo in their family? What did I go through with beastie and her sisters? What did I say about her sisters? What did I say abour beastie? You take one opening statement, and ignore qualifier after qualifier. I really though you would do better.

Ray, give me a break. No, I did not go through and read your back-peddling comments which were posted long after Juliann started defending you and started accusing those who voiced concern about your comments, as "attacking" you. But just because you later qualified your comments in subsequent posts, doesn't change the fact that your initial post clearly offended, and rightfully so, a great number of people who frequent this forum. Your attempts to miigate your post is fruitless. Like this:

== Fight against something they know, or knew, is true, by their own admissions, and my subsequent "theory" is that many of them still know it's true.

No, "know" and "knew" are two different things. You said they "know" which clearly implies they are currently lying to themselves. Calling it your own theory doesn't change the fact that it was your initial "analysis" that was meshed in with your bullet proof testimony. If I theorize that black people came from monkeys, is that "qualified" because it is just a "theory," or my "personal feeling"? Does that mean black people have no business getting offended by my personal thoughts?

== I really though you would do better.

I am sorry if you were under the delusion that I am here to impress you. I have no intention to bear dance for you or anyone else. The simple fact is your initial post offended numerous people and Juliann started defending your opening post, assuring people that there was no reason at all to be offended, long before you came along with your so-called qualifiers. Cacheman was offended and Juliann said: "This is standard stuff in sociology of religion so I don't think making this a personal attack on Ray is going to help you avoid it." Juliann thinks she is just giving scholarly information with no intention to excite the crowd by saying things like "if the shoe doesn't fit don't wear it," but she implicitly asserts that most everyone responding, fits the shoe. In this instance it is implied that cacheman must be an apostate since he is trying to "avoid" the conclusions by the experts. She claims she doesn't want "hysteria," but she actually fuels it.

== Maybe you're addressing Juliann, as I never quoted...

Of course I was. She said sociologists supported you, therefore there was no reason to be offended by what you said. This is hogwash of course, and Juliann is unable to back up what she asserted. Sociologists do not support your comments.
And for someone accusing me of lack of insight, and simply not "getting it," I find it ironic that the rest of your post beats a straw man, assuming I was teh one who decided to argue from a sociological context. Juliann is the one dragging in the sociologists, not me.

== One more thing. People come on this board and insult Mormons day after day, with snide remarks, sniggering posts, and a "you silly people" attitude.

So your following the "two wrongs make a right" logic? This is a matter or perception. I see TBMs inferring such attitudes where none exist, which is probably why you cannot provide a direct example of this "daily" event.

== They have warded off attack after attack, whether overtly or covertly, until the mods were at their wits end, hence the clampdown.

The discernment of the mods is a matter of perception as well, and naturally you would agree with them every time they edit a post or shut down a discussion when a TBM is up against the ropes.

== No, this was not "reasonable dialogue", these are people who come here with the sole intention of belitting and detsroying faith, yes Kevin, the same board you so scrupulously try to hide from your family and friends because of the intensity of the criticisms.

Their intention is not to destroy faith, except for maybe some of the atheists. Your problem is that you carry with you the traditional Mormon grudge against all apostates. They are evil. They are wallowing in darkness. They work for Satan. That is how LDS are generally taught to perceive all ex-Mormons.

== To come on now like the Knighted Prince and defender of exmos

I am not the defender of ex-Mormons (what needs defending unless they are being attacked?). I consider myself a defender of common sense and common courtesy. Anyone making wild generalizations about "apostates" would be on the receiving end of scorn if referring to any other religious group. Clearly apostate Baptists and Apostate Catholics hold a special place in our hearts. But Apostate Mormons are to be dragged through the mud.... why? Oh, yeah. Because you had some traumatic experiences on their RFM forum, and have since decided to take your frustrations out on the entire world of LDS apostates.

== when you don't even have the pluck to go on exmo boards and find out for yourself what goes on, is less than impressive, Kevin.

Again, so what? I don't frequent those boards because there is no point in it. Most of them are complete idiots. But many also lurk there and take note in how Mormons overract, as well as the exmos.

== I have been there!

Do you want some kind of medal? Why on earth would you subject yourself to such an environment in the first place? It is pointless. I know because I have been there.

== Do you know what it's like. Come and join me in the "waters" sometime. That's a friendly invitation.

For what? So I can get my emotions running high as well, and maybe go back to the early period of my apologetic days when I was just as resentful and insensitive towards ex-Mormons as you clearly have become?

== Then we will see how much your "sociology textbooks" mean in the face of reality.

Which textbooks would those be?

Juliann: The reaction is because it hits too close to home and a lot of people here don't want to own their own behavior.

And yet another back door attempt to say those here do fit the shoe you've presented them.

== No...I did.

Yes, and you were clearly implying that scholarship had your back. When it all boils down to it, the only things you and the sociologists agree upon, are the same things most everyone else would agree with too. But you keep trying to give the impression that your highly opinionated comments are supported by them. They aren't. That was my point.

== I can read what the quote says. I'll bet everybody else can, too.

We can also read your sporadic comments that imply these men are supporting you. I am simply pointing out that they don't.

Humorously, this was the thread where Dunamis said:

You are wearing out your welcome here, Kevin. Your posts are extremely combative and you machine gun several posters at once. Posters get rowdy but a thread can be kept under control until you enter it and this is happening much too often.

Thread closed.

On further reflection, I am putting Kevin on the queue. Your special protection has been used up as far as I am concerned.

[_beastie]

What was the bit about "beastie and her sisters"? My real life sisters? I must have missed that exchange.

I'm not surprised that Juliann thought sociologists provided support for Ray's assertions, since, as far as I could tell from our exchange about Bromley, she tends to distort what the sociologists are saying.

Here was an interesting aside from Ray, expanding on why his ego is wounded by exmormons in particular, and atheist exmormons in specific:

I'm not impressed with "ark steadies", but I'm not denying their right to post either. I'm wondering why there seems to be so many "brights" among exmos. And this comment from Dennett says a lot too. He really believes that believers are not very bright. I'm coming from the other end of the spectrum to Dennett. Here is Dennett's definition of a "bright":

QUOTE

What is a bright?

* A bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview
* A bright's worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements
* The ethics and actions of a bright are based on a naturalistic worldview


If you don't hold a naturalistic worldview, you're not very bright. Someone said they found this thread offensive. Well I find Dennett's opinion offensive, very much so. Dawkins is on his mission to end religion, so is Dennett, and I will oppose them (not that I don't have objections to aspects of religion, but I think it will be horrific if society went the way Dennett/Dawkins want). I think some exmos take the same approach to Mormonism.

Heh. This objection to the term "brights" was funny when it occurred... particularly when it was being objected to by people who call themselves "saints". ;)

[_guy sajer]

I admit to being disappointed in Ray. When I first joined this board, I had some civil interactions with him, and I've never been at odds with him. Sadly, however, he appears to have gone off the deep end.

His extreme rhetoric is really quite silly. I've got to believe that he's smarter than to take literally all the BS he's shovelling out these days.