? for Ray A

[_Ray A]

That's just not true, Ray. The bulk of my criticism is aimed at behavior which, to my mind, can be changed. I have high hopes that the Church will one day change for the better, and become everything it is capable of being.

I don't think the Church needs "ark steadies". And the way you are going about it will categorically not change anything. Change to what, anyway? What is so draconian about the Church now that it needs changing? If balanced and friendly voices from within speak up, for whatever change they may envision, then the Brethren might listen. You are not friendly to the Church. And every TBM on this board can see that! Do you think then that you have any chance to get the ear of the Brethren? More than likely they will do the opposite of what you say. I never seek to impose my view of the Book of Mormon on Mormons, apart from letting people know where I stand. Like everyone else, I could also be wrong, and for that reason I'm not arrogant about my view, and feel no urge to change the Church.

The fact of the matter is that I have a lot of questions regarding Mormonism. (I note that you, too, are guilty of conflating the system with the individuals.) One of my main questions is why the Church is so insistent upon maintaining this "squeaky clean" image, when in fact there are quite a few ugly skeletons in the closet. Something about this has always seemed very dishonest to me, and so yes, I do suppose that the stuff that "look[s] bad" is indeed "juicy" (since it runs so contrary to the image the Church strives to maintain).

Sorry, but you're about 30 years late. All of this has already been made known in journals like Dialogue and Sunstone, and the Journal of Mormon History. There is not a single issue you raise that I have not been aware of, and I don't parade it before a cynical and mocking audience to hold the Church up to derision like you do. But if you call this "fun and games", by all means carry on your show if it gives you your daily hit. In time I will drop this subject altogether, because I have no illusions I will change you either. This appears to be your playground, but don't allow your hair to stand on end when people challenge your views.

This is not true either, Ray. I only use the stuff which the people themselves post publicly. I don't do any "scrutinizing" of anyone's "lives." I read posts, and I respond to posts, and there is nothing wrong with that.

No, Scratch, you imbibe in liberal "interpretations" of people's actions and motives. You judge people, and I'm giving you a small taste of what it feels like.

Wow, this is surely one for the record books. Thanks, Ray, I needed that.

I still don't know your position. I don't even know if you're a Mormon. You hide behind a pseudonym, never tell anyone about yourself, and from your incognito haven launch missiles at Mormonism and individual Mormons. This is very cowardly behaviour which no one can respect. Would "Mister Scratch" say the same things he says now if everyone knew who he is? Why is he so afraid to make known his real identity? Is it because he knows how slanderous some of his comments are? Indeed, those who post pseudononymously on RFM are also cowards. They are quite prepared to ambush and shoot from anonymity, and try to destroy the character of others as long as no one knows who they are. And they do this in the name of "recovery from Mormonism", and they are excused by people like you.

Seems a bit hyperbolic. Would you say that many of the apologists' arguments are also "one-sided"?

Of course some of the apologetic arguments are one-sided. I have pointed this out too. But I know who the apologists are, and I have spoken with Dan Peterson (the "chief apologist") face to face in my living room about the problems I have with the Church. I don't hide behind a pseudonym and attack him and slander him. I have enormous respect for him for he has never uttered a word of criticism at my open confession of the problems I have. He is quite adamant in his beliefs, and has never sought to impose them on me. If you spent an hour or two talking to Dan, I think you would be ashamed of everything you wrote about him. The only "impositions" Dan has ever made was to point out to me alternatve materials to read. I have had a long association with FARMS, going back to 1983. In 1987-88 I wrote Jack Welch a 10 or 12 page letter outlining some problems I saw with FARMS. Then three years later FARMS took a different approach, and openly began addressing anti-Mormon literature, and the engagements were very enlightening, but did not always meet with the approval of the Church leaders, or some members. I am not saying I facilitated change, because that would be extraordinarily vain, but I felt FARMS began to address problems that were being swept under the carpet. Volume six of the FARMS Review (two volumes) was a review of New Approaches To The Book of Mormon, and volume one was 100 pages longer than New Approaches. This enabled me to weigh the arguments in detail, and I read both books several times, taking copious notes. I have also noted that FARMS tackles issues raised on forums, and they are apparently working on rebuttals to the "spirit wirting" theory. I await the results of their research. There is no need for me to hammer them, or be cynical. Contrast this with your approach, which is based on ridicule. You don't want respectful engagement, Scratch, you just want attention, and you're prepared to sensationalise and speculate beyond good taste. If this excites your fan club, then you can bask in your five minutes of fame.

[_Ray A]

Odd how you are willing to give Prof. P. the benefit of the doubt, and yet you will not extend the same courtesy to me.

Let's just say that his track record is better than yours, and dare I say, his intelligence is a notch or two higher than yours.

Anyways, you can read his posts for yourself. The evidence is overwhelming---coming from his own words, no less!---that he was guilty of gossipmongering. He hates the fact that he slipped up on this issue, and confessed to me in an email that he knows it "makes [him] look unethical." His behavior on this subject is the classic example of the sinner having his sins exposed to the light of day. I hope he repents.

He has clarified this to me in emails. Your speculations are, again, way off the track. And no, I don't divulge the content of private emails unless I have the permission of the sender.

So, do you have some new facts? Because the facts as they stand communicate quite clearly that DCP was engaged in gossipmongering.

See above.

[_beastie]

Ray,

I will tell you one more time. Outside of the Mormon corridor, the majority of US citizens have heard almost nothing about the Mormon church, other than their TV commercials and the fact that they are associated with polygamy. The majority of US citizens have never touched a piece of anti-mormon literature, nor have they ever been exposed to any LDS theme bulletin board like this one. For you to insist that there exists wide prejudice against Mormons due to the fact that exmormons propagate lies is inconsistent with the facts.

I'll come back to deal with your other points later, but I want to stress this to you, because you have conjured up a scenario that just does not mesh with reality. I know it's hard to believe due to Mormon egocentrism, but the fact is that it is a fairly insignificant religion outside the Mormon corridor that hardly receives an ounce of attention. Of course, Mitt Romney's viable presidential candidacy is changing that.

Interesting for a member of a religion that is so persecuted that mass acts of violence are going to break out any day, comparable to the holocaust, but Romney has succeeded in raising vast amounts of money for his campaign.

http://www.examiner.com/a-652020~GOP__0 ... Highs.html

Republican Mitt Romney reported raising $23 million for his presidential campaign during the first three months of the year, a surprising tally for a relative newcomer and an amount rivaling the total reported a day earlier by Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Meanwhile, the GOP front-runner in the polls, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, said his donations totaled $15 million - including more than $10 million during March alone.

Both Republican numbers blew away past party presidential fundraising standards, while Romney's figure put the former Massachusetts governor in competition with Clinton, the Democratic front-runner. The New York senator on Sunday reported raising $26 million between Jan. 1 and March 31.

Really, if you are serious about this and are not just engaging in hyperbole, the moral thing to do is to contact the Romney campaign and try to get him to address this issue. Think of the lives you could help save. If you don't even consider this as a viable option, and instead believe the moral route is to fuss at exmormons on the internet, then I believe you aren't truly serious about this issue, and instead are engaging in meaningless hyperbole. Do you want to save all these Mormon lives at risk or not?

[_beastie]

Ray’s primary assertion:

Exmormons are so vicious and mean to Mormons like DCP and Juliann, that they are influencing public opinion against Mormons to the extent that acts of violence comparable to the holocaust will occur in the future.

Proof:
A) Exmormons say very mean things about DCP on RFM.
B) A significant number of US citizens say they would not vote for a Mormon, and exmormons who propagate lies and say mean things about DCP on RFM are to blame for this fact.

My response:
A) The vast majority of US citizens outside the Mormon corridor have never been exposed to any antimormon literature of any kind. Their main source of information about Mormons is the brief mention they warrant in the settling of the West in public textbooks, and polygamy is mentioned as being practiced by the Mormons.
B) Even more people say they would not vote for an atheist. This does not necessarily mean that there is some group industriously propagating lies about atheists, and has nothing to do with the criticisms visible atheists like Richard Dawkins receive. As with the Mormon example, the vast majority of US citizens have never heard of Richard Dawkins and read nothing about atheism in particular.

Now in response to this, Ray went off on some wild goose chase about me agitating for an atheist president and proselytizing for atheism. In fact, I clearly stated that perhaps people simply feel more comfortable with a believer as president. People tend to feel more comfortable with “their own”. This, in combination with the fact that the only thing most people know about LDS is that they are associated with polygamy, is perhaps the best explanation for why they hesitate to vote for a Mormon. The one exception would be members of conservative EV faiths who have likely been exposed to EV anti-mormon literature, which is of an entirely different nature than what we see on RFM or a board like this.

Once again, Ray, since you have made highly inflammatory charges in that you have made direct comparisons to Nazis and exmormons in general and specific posters, I invite you to provide proof of your assertions. You will need to provide evidence that a significant number of never-been-mormon US citizens who live outside the LDS corridor have been exposed to anti-mormon literature You will need to provide evidence that boards such as this one and RFM have exposure to people outside a very small, self-selected group of exmormons and Mormons. You will also need to demonstrate that exmormons are telling lies about Mormonism.

I’m sure that having made such extraordinary accusations against an entire group of people you won’t mind providing hard evidence of your claims. What you have provided thus far does not constitute evidence of anything other than that a very small group of people have said mean things about DCP, and these mean things are read by another small group of people.

Notice I have generously avoided asking for evidence that exmormons are inspired by an ‘evil spirit’ in general, although your confession in this regard helps me to understand why you believe that the LDS church will never change its teachings about apostates. You think they are right. We are, indeed, Satan’s minions, in your worldview. Is there some reason you are so attracted to our association? At times, you have even professed feeling more comfortable with us. What does that say about you, that you find satan's helpers to be so alluring?

[_Ray A]

Ray,

I will tell you one more time. Outside of the Mormon corridor, the majority of US citizens have heard almost nothing about the Mormon church, other than their TV commercials and the fact that they are associated with polygamy. The majority of US citizens have never touched a piece of anti-mormon literature, nor have they ever been exposed to any LDS theme bulletin board like this one. For you to insist that there exists wide prejudice against Mormons due to the fact that exmormons propagate lies is inconsistent with the facts.

I am aware of this. In a country of 300 million how many will know the details about Mormonism? But that absolve the hate campaigns, on any level? Who knows how far this inflammatory rhetoric could spread? Just before Christmas last year I read a post on RFM from a usually trenchant critic. I have been criticised for saying that RFM is a hate site, but read the subject heading from this RFM poster:

Replacing Hate of Mormonism with love at Christmas....

Yes, Mormons got a one thread "Christmas break". The above subject heading is a self-evident truth to all except the most blind. This momentary honesty is the truth, spoken by an exmo.

I'll come back to deal with your other points later, but I want to stress this to you, because you have conjured up a scenario that just does not mesh with reality. I know it's hard to believe due to Mormon egocentrism, but the fact is that it is a fairly insignificant religion outside the Mormon corridor that hardly receives an ounce of attention. Of course, Mitt Romney's viable presidential candidacy is changing that.

Interesting for a member of a religion that is so persecuted that mass acts of violence are going to break out any day, comparable to the holocaust, but Romney has succeeded in raising vast amounts of money for his campaign.

It's a pity few, or none, tried to stop Luther. Four hundred years after his rhetoric German minds were influenced by his words. Here is a summary of Luther:

Introduction
I wish to make clear that the purpose of these selections from Martin Luther aims at providing a historical and scholarly source for study of anti-Semitism, religious thought, and how it has influenced the German population and their outlook on Jews.

There will always exist a potential for misuse of any information. However, it has come from observation that hiding such information from view can lead (and has led) to unconscious support of underground movements of anti-Semitism that use these texts for their various nefarious purposes. Bringing this information to light will allow critical analyses by not only scholars, but also by everyday people to help dispel the myths founded by unsupported beliefs and to help fight the tools used by anti-Semitic cults.


A little about Dr. Martin Luther (1483-1546)

Luther, a German theologian and religious reformer, initiated the Protestant Reformation and forever split Christianity from Catholicism. His influence extends beyond religion to politics, economics, education and language. In 1505, after receiving a bachelor's and master's degree, he suddenly abandoned his studies, entered the Augustinian monastery in Erfurt and became a monk. He became a controversial figure when he published his Ninety-Five Theses, opposing the indulgences (release from the penalties for sin through the payment of money by the Catholic Church). This resulted in his split from the Roman Catholic Church where he established unique Christian interpretations about the Bible and theology. His influence resulted in the major Protestant denomination of Lutheranism where their churches today use Luther's name.

Protestant Christians so admire Martin Luther that he stands as a respected "Patron Saint" to their beliefs and morals. Christians often quote him, theologians write books on him, and many name their children after him (Martin Luther King Jr., for example).

Luther's anti-Jewishness

Unfortunately few popular books on Luther go into detail about Luther's anti-Jewishness, or even mention that he had a hatred for Jews at all. This has resulted in a biased outlook towards Martin Luther and Christianity. This unawareness of Luther's sinister side, while honoring his "righteousness" leads to a ratcheting promotion of Luther which supports a "good" public image while also transporting his Jewish beliefs to those who carry the seeds of anti-Semitism. This will present an unwanted dilemma for many Christians because Luther represents the birth of Protestant Christianity as well as the genesis of the special brand of Jewish hatred that flourished only in Germany.

Although Luther did not invent anti-Jewishness, he promoted it to a level never before seen in Europe. Luther bore the influence of his upbringing and from anti-Jewish theologians such as Lyra, Burgensis, (and John Chrysostom, before them). But Luther's 1543 book, "On the Jews and their lies" took Jewish hatred to a new level when he proposed to set fire to their synagogues and schools, to take away their homes, forbad them to pray or teach, or even to utter God's name. Luther wanted to "be rid of them" and requested that the government and ministers deal with the problem. He requested pastors and preachers to follow his example of issuing warnings against the Jews. He goes so far as to claim that "We are at fault in not slaying them" for avenging the death of Jesus Christ. Hitler's Nazi government in the 1930s and 40s fit Luther's desires to a tee.

So vehemently did Luther speak against the Jews, and the fact that Luther represented an honorable and admired Christian to Protestants, that his written words carried the "memetic" seeds of anti-Jewishness up until the 20th century and into the Third Reich. Luther's Jewish eliminationist rhetoric virtually matches the beliefs held by Hitler and much of the German populace in the 1930s.

Luther unconsciously set the stage for the future of German nationalistic fanaticism. William L. Shirer in his "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich," puts it succinctly:

"Through his sermons and his magnificent translations of the Bible, Luther created the modern German language, aroused in the people not only a new Protestant vision of Christianity by a fervent German nationalism and taught them, at least in religion, the supremacy of the individual conscience. But tragically for them, Luther's siding with the princes in the peasant rising, which he had largely inspired, and his passion for political autocracy ensured a mindless and provincial political absolutism which reduced the vast majority of the German people to poverty, to a horrible torpor and a demeaning subservience. Even worse perhaps, it helped to perpetuate and indeed to sharpen the hopeless divisions not only between classes but also between the various dynastic and political groupings of the German people. It doomed for centuries the possibility of the unification of Germany."

http://www.nobeliefs.com/luther.htm

There are fervent denials that hate speech exists on RFM. I have quoted at length from Dan Peterson's collection, which represent, by his own admission, the more "benign" quotes, since some were even uglier and could not be posted on MAD. This language should not be condoned by anyone. It represents a seedling (in your country of some 300 million), but it is an ominous sign. Laugh at what I have to say if you will, but I am sickened by this rhetoric, and its potential for spreading - unconsciously as well. They think that what they are writing is benign, and inoffensive, yet even Kevin Graham can speak of the "bile" on RFM. I frankly do not care if I lose credibility in your eyes, or anyone else's here, I will speak as my conscience dictates.

Really, if you are serious about this and are not just engaging in hyperbole, the moral thing to do is to contact the Romney campaign and try to get him to address this issue. Think of the lives you could help save. If you don't even consider this as a viable option, and instead believe the moral route is to fuss at exmormons on the internet, then I believe you aren't truly serious about this issue, and instead are engaging in meaningless hyperbole. Do you want to save all these Mormon lives at risk or not?

This is cynicism, obviously, and complete misses the points I'm making.

[_beastie]

Ray,

I take this response to mean that you cannot provide evidence of your assertions. This is, of course, what I expected.

by the way, the small group of people who actually do post real attacks on the person of DCP do not believe that they are behaving in a benign fashion. They just think DCP deserves it. As you believe we deserve everything you have been saying on this thread.

And no, my invitation to you to actually DO something about the oncoming holocaust is not cynicism. Of course you don't believe your own hyperbole. If you really believed that a mass wave of violence was brewing against Mormons, you would actually do something about it other than scold people on the internet. If you really believe a wave of violence is brewing and do NOTHING other than fuss on the internet, then you are an immoral person who will also have blood on his hands.

I will also say that the level of rhetoric engaged against Mormonism today is nothing compared to what was leveled against it in the past. It is also nothing compared to the rhetoric of past "prophets of God". In reality, as opposed to your fervent imagination, public opinion has been softening to Mormonism, thanks to the deliberate PR campaign of the church.

[_Ray A]

Ray’s primary assertion:

Exmormons are so vicious and mean to Mormons like DCP and Juliann, that they are influencing public opinion against Mormons to the extent that acts of violence comparable to the holocaust will occur in the future.

Proof:
A) Exmormons say very mean things about DCP on RFM.
B) A significant number of US citizens say they would not vote for a Mormon, and exmormons who propagate lies and say mean things about DCP on RFM are to blame for this fact.

I've said already it's not about DCP alone. It is the whole tone of the place, and the denials that there is hate speech.

Once again, Ray, since you have made highly inflammatory charges in that you have made direct comparisons to Nazis and exmormons in general and specific posters, I invite you to provide proof of your assertions. You will need to provide evidence that a significant number of never-been-mormon US citizens who live outside the LDS corridor have been exposed to anti-mormon literature You will need to provide evidence that boards such as this one and RFM have exposure to people outside a very small, self-selected group of exmormons and Mormons. You will also need to demonstrate that exmormons are telling lies about Mormonism.

When I have time I will provide all of the evidence for the assertions I've made, not what you think I've made.

I’m sure that having made such extraordinary accusations against an entire group of people you won’t mind providing hard evidence of your claims. What you have provided thus far does not constitute evidence of anything other than that a very small group of people have said mean things about DCP, and these mean things are read by another small group of people.

Again you misread. I have differentiated between ex-Mormons, but you completely ignore this and lay a much broader charge about an "entire group".

Notice I have generously avoided asking for evidence that exmormons are inspired by an ‘evil spirit’ in general, although your confession in this regard helps me to understand why you believe that the LDS church will never change its teachings about apostates. You think they are right. We are, indeed, Satan’s minions, in your worldview. Is there some reason you are so attracted to our association? At times, you have even professed feeling more comfortable with us. What does that say about you, that you find satan's helpers to be so alluring?

I relate to many ex-Mormons on some points, and most of the ones I relate too share my own previous journey out of Mormonism. Naturally I feel more comfortable discussing this with them, than I do with Mormons. But when a site becomes filled with invective and constant denigrating of Mormons and Mormonism, I draw a line. Can you understand that? No? When you say "attracted to our association", no I am not attracted to people who constantly run down Mormonism. Have you noticed the pattern of my posting? It has become considerably less and less. Wonder why? Because I thought there could, overall, be fruitful and balanced discussions here. Some are occurring in the CF, and I am reading those, and most of my posts were originally in the CF when I wanted to discuss controversial subjects. I am posting on this thread because you directed questions to me. Do you notice that I seldom, if ever get attacked by Mormons who post here? Their "association" with this board is in some ways similar to mine. Now you generalise by saying "our association". I no longer feel comfortable here, and this has been growing for quite a while. I've said, and will repeat, that Shades had one intention for this board - that it would go in the direction which the majority of posters wanted. It has done so, and with your reference to "our association", it confirms what I see.

[_beastie]

Why in the world would any believing Mormon attack you, of all people? You are the perfect exmormon, the one who won't deny that the Book of Mormon is divine, and that the church is "true" (in some liberal fashion), but you just don't want to live the lifestyle. Good grief, they wouldn't want to attack you, they'd want to CLONE you.

[_Ray A]

Why in the world would any believing Mormon attack you, of all people? You are the perfect exmormon, the one who won't deny that the Book of Mormon is divine, and that the church is "true" (in some liberal fashion), but you just don't want to live the lifestyle. Good grief, they wouldn't want to attack you, they'd want to CLONE you.

It's not that I don't want to live the lifestyle, which I do think is better. I admit that I'm a victim of my own weakness, but that is a matter between myself and God. I will let God be my judge, not you or anyone else, in these matters. I've previously said, quite openly, that I live a "pagan" lifestyle. What I do not do is begrudge Mormons for living what I consider to be, ultimately, a better lifestyle than mine as far as developing spirituality, etc. I also admire the Dalai Lama, and Gandhi, and Solzhenitsyn, and Tolstoy. Writer V.S.Naipaul has written a book titled Among The Believers, and often praised a lifestyle which he was far from living himself.

I wonder how much anger is directed at Mormons because they have chosen a higher road, morally? I admire their morality, and what some would say is "prudishness". Because of my admiration for their overall goodness and morality, which I have seen so many times in the lives of Mormons I know, I can honestly say "you are a better person than I am". It doesn't anger me. Some do become a bit self-righteous. But good fruit does not come from a bad tree, and the Mormons who truly live their religion are indeed "a light to the world". I'm not going to grovel in the dirt and criticise them merely because I can't, at the moment, achieve that standard. Call me hypocritical if you like, but God knows my heart. Self-justification is the worst form of deception, and I do not try to justify myself by putting down people I consider to have higher standards than I do.

[_Ray A]

You are the perfect exmormon, the one who won't deny that the Book of Mormon is divine...

It's not so much that I "won't deny" it, it's that I can't deny it. This is why I said that many exmos have forgotten what they felt, and how powerful the Book of Mormon had influenced their lives, and why Mormons continue to believe. Some have not had these experiences, and their loss of faith in the Book of Mormon is understandable, and again I will let God be their judge. It is the anger against these things that I find objectionable, and the constant trying by some people to bring Mormons down to "reality". For them the witness of the Book of Mormon is a reality. Whatever problems I have with the Church, or aspects of Mormon doctrines I find difficult to believe, I will not deny what I experienced when reading the Book of Mormon as being from God.