? for Ray A

[_beastie]

I suppose if one became a drunkard, liar, and a cheat upon leaving Mormonism, then one could argue Mormons have a better lifestyle. I don't know any exmormon who has undergone such a transformation, although that doesn't mean they don't exist. People don't change their fundamental natures just by changing belief systems. If you were a good, decent Mormon who loved his/her family and was socially responsible, chances are you will remain so as an exmormon.

in my opinion, total abstinence from alcohol, particularly when it seems to often be accompanied by food abuse, and spending hours in church service away from your family doesn't seem particularly admirable to me. There's nothing wrong with moderate alcohol use and it can be healthy. And it seems that families would benefit more from parents with less church obligations, which involve time away from home and often involve stress - and, in some parts of the country, evolve into second part time jobs. (unpaid of course)

[_Ray A]

I suppose if one became a drunkard, liar, and a cheat upon leaving Mormonism, then one could argue Mormons have a better lifestyle. I don't know any exmormon who has undergone such a transformation, although that doesn't mean they don't exist. People don't change their fundamental natures just by changing belief systems. If you were a good, decent Mormon who loved his/her family and was socially responsible, chances are you will remain so as an exmormon.

I am quite certain you are wrong on this one. People do change their nature when they leave Mormonism. I was neither a drunkard, cheat or liar when I was a true believing Mormon. I do sometimes drink to excess now, but I did not touch one drop of alcohol until after I left the Church. 13 years a teetotaler. Beastie, if you have not observed one Ex-Mormon who has not fundementally changed, then you are really in Disneyland, not only Disneyland, but in the Fantasyland part. You are denying reality, and the number of posts on RFM from people who have admitted change, yet tried to justify it. I don't consider myself a liar now, and that was a fundamental part of my make up. My parents ingrained into me that I should not deceive or lie, and I'm a pathetic liar anyway, couldn't lie and keep a straight face. But in other ways I did significantly change when I abandoned the Church.

in my opinion, total abstinence from alcohol, particularly when it seems to often be accompanied by food abuse, and spending hours in church service away from your family doesn't seem particularly admirable to me. There's nothing wrong with moderate alcohol use and it can be healthy. And it seems that families would benefit more from parents with less church obligations, which involve time away from home and often involve stress - and, in some parts of the country, evolve into second part time jobs. (unpaid of course)

This is a crass generalisation. Food abuse? All Mormons engage in "food abuse"? No, there's nothing wrong with alcohol in moderation, the problem is that "moderation" often becomes "gluttoration". When an Aussie says he's been at the pub for "a couple of beers" you can safely deduct he's had about ten. I do not decry this, but when it leads to physical abuse, or verbal abuse, which I see everyday, it becomes wrong.

[_Mister Scratch]

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?

Frankly, I don't care if they listen or not. These MBs are for discussing all kinds of interesting issues.

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.

Are you not seeking to "impose" your view of RfM on everyone?

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.

No. You just feel the "urge" to "change" the critics.

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,

Did you not just claim above that you aren't "arrogant"? If you think that *you* are representative of the average person---or even the average LDS or LDS investigator---then I've got some cheap swamp land I'd like to sell you.

and I don't parade it before a cynical and mocking audience to hold the Church up to derision like you do.

For a couple of months I happily posted my criticism on the ironically named FAIRboard. But, as you well know, I was unfairly booted off.

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.

Okay, thanks for that, Ray. I appreciate it.

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.

I "imbibe in liberal 'interpretations'"??? Do you not know what "imbibe" means, Ray? Perhaps you have been "imbibing" a bit too much yourself as of late.

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.

Honestly, Ray: I fail to see the difference in what I do compared with DCP, juliann & co. hiding behind the well-moderated walls of the fittingly named MADboard. Would you care to enlighten me on what the significant and salient difference[s] is/are?

Would "Mister Scratch" say the same things he says now if everyone knew who he is?

Would DCP say the same things he says now if he was not protected by his BYU sinecure, and the friendly mods at MAD?

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.

I don't think so, Ray. Many people have suffered enormously because of the vindictiveness which, sadly, seems to be an inherent part of Mormonism. The anger and vitriol expressed by parties on both sides of the fence makes anonymity a smart idea. I have already had TBMs come to my residence to harass me because of my writings and views. I would prefer to not deal with that any further.

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.

So what? The character assassination engaged in by DCP and his ilk is done in the name of "righteousness." Such as Pahoran's life-threatening "outing" of JP Holding.

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.

When? Where?

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.

This last sentence doesn't make any sense. It seems like a red herring, actually.

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.

I spent a couple of days emailing him, asking him why he thought it was kosher to make a false accusation against me. He protested that he was acting "reasonably." I continued to maintain that I was innocent, and he essentially told me that he did not care, and that he relished the potential opportunity to "embarrass" a critic.

-

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.

What "approach", Ray? You mean grovelling and smooching the butts of the various FAIRites who will confirm your beliefs for you? Frankly, that doesn't seem very "scholarly" to me, and far less entertaining/enjoyable to boot.

You don't want respectful engagement, Scratch,

Ray---I cannot get "engagement." I have been *banned* from MAD, remember? When DCP does engage my arguments, he does so from the cozy confines of the fittingly named MADboard. Or else he departs from scholarly orthodoxy in order to publish unattributed quotes in FROB, which he himself edits.

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.

What "fan club," Ray? What "fame"? You have belabored the point that I post pseudonymously. How can I therefore "bask in [my] five minutes of fame"? How can I in anyway benefit from such a thing? Please enlighten me.

[_Ray A]

So tell me Beastie, how many times have exmos referred to Mormons as "Nazi-Mormons"?

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

How funny that he needs the fittingly named MADmods to protect him from me, then!

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.

What, he said that he was not actually talking about Quinn? Are you going to enlighten us, Ray? Or are you confessing to the fact that you have no counter-evidence?

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

See above.

Well, then. If you have no new facts, then we must rely on the ones at hand. DCP remains guilty of rank gossipmongering.

[_Ray A]

What "approach", Ray? You mean grovelling and smooching the butts of the various FAIRites who will confirm your beliefs for you? Frankly, that doesn't seem very "scholarly" to me, and far less entertaining/enjoyable to boot.

What you call "entertainment" is distortion.

Ray---I cannot get "engagement." I have been *banned* from MAD, remember? When DCP does engage my arguments, he does so from the cozy confines of the fittingly named MADboard. Or else he departs from scholarly orthodoxy in order to publish unattributed quotes in FROB, which he himself edits.

And you got banned because you never wanted respectful engagement. You wanted to be sensational, but MAD would not allow you to use their board to pedal your distortions. Here you can do it unfettered.

What "fan club," Ray? What "fame"? You have belabored the point that I post pseudonymously. How can I therefore "bask in [my] five minutes of fame"? How can I in anyway benefit from such a thing? Please enlighten me.

Easy, tell us who you are. Or are you afraid to put a real name to the trash you write?

As for the word "imbibe", here's one definition:

To absorb or take in as if by drinking: "The whole body . . . imbibes delight through every pore" Henry David Thoreau.

That's another thing I've noticed about you - your comprehension skills and not always up to....Scratch?

[_Ray A]

Well, then. If you have no new facts, then we must rely on the ones at hand. DCP remains guilty of rank gossipmongering.

Charged, tried, and convicted by "Mister Scratch". Or should that be - Judge Scratch? And you wonder why MAD won't let you post on their board?

[_beastie]

So tell me Beastie, how many times have exmos referred to Mormons as "Nazi-Mormons"?

I have no idea. When I've seen it, I've objected, as I just did on a thread there tonight. You know very well I stand up for what I believe is right on RFM, even if I am attacked for it.

So this is your excuse? The evil spirited exmormons do it, so you can, too? So far you've told us you intend to keep engaging in personal attacks as retribution for what you perceive as exmormon hatred fostering a climate of physical abuse. How is this different from the exmormons engaging in personal attacks as retribution for the sins they perceive in Mormonism? Now, when I point out how offensive and trivializing it is to genocide to compare what you call exmormon "hate speech" to the rhetoric that preceded the Jewish Holocaust, you ask how many times exmos have done the same thing?

You have told us that you believe exmormons are filled with an evil spirit, and are comparable to Nazis. Now, it appears, you feel justified in engaging in the very behavior you found so offensive in them, since you can say "they do it too".

[_beastie]

Ray,

someone who morphed this:

in my opinion, total abstinence from alcohol, particularly when it seems to often be accompanied by food abuse, and spending hours in church service away from your family doesn't seem particularly admirable to me.

into this:

This is a crass generalisation. Food abuse? All Mormons engage in "food abuse"?

Ought not to be lecturing others about reading comprehension.

No, there's nothing wrong with alcohol in moderation, the problem is that "moderation" often becomes "gluttoration". When an Aussie says he's been at the pub for "a couple of beers" you can safely deduct he's had about ten. I do not decry this, but when it leads to physical abuse, or verbal abuse, which I see everyday, it becomes wrong.

You really hang out with a bad crowd, don't you? Bunch of crooks, liars, drunkards, and abusers. I hang out with a different crowd. I haven't seen any of that behavior in exmos I know personally. Certainly exmormons change, but they do not change their fundamental natures. Formerly honest, upright, decent people do not become craven liars, drunkards, and abusers. They may take a drink now and then. They may have sex with a consenting adult. They may say a swear word now and then. These are choices that are unrelated to the more basic mores of honesty, caring for others, being responsible, etc. If you can't see that, perhaps you are projecting some of your own problems and the problems of the people you hang around with onto others.

[_Jersey Girl]

Butting in here, having only read the first page or so of this thread. Ray, I find your mention of potential violence to be unbelievably unfortunate and unwise. Next thing you know there'll be a thread on MAD spreading a rumor that someone from this board or RFM has threatened violence.

Jersey Girl