Ray A wrote:Mister Scratch wrote:Mormons have not been "driven out of the lands they settled" in over a hundred years. I doubt very much that they will be "driven out" of the Zion Corridor any time soon. Do you have a better analogy, or is this just more of the TBM persecution complex?
Scratch, in this post once again you demonstrate your poor comprehension of what I'm saying. Did I say Mormons would be driven out from anywhere? Do you understand what a historical analogy is?
Yes, I do. And your Jews vs. Mormons analogy is a poor one, mate.
Have Jews been driven out from anywhere since 1947? Does anti-Jewish sentiment still exist? Does violence against Jews still occur? They are still threatened on all sides, and some crazy people like Saddam have said they wanted them nuked. Why do you think there are Jewish organisations created to fight anti-Semitism? You know, if angry exmos said in this country about Jews what they are saying about Mormons it wouldn't be long before they were hauled before the courts and anti-discrimination boards. But I understand that in America you have different constitutional laws. Anti-Muslim websites in this country have been shut down. I know the owner of one who was shut down. Why? I won't rely on your genius to work that out, Scratch. It breeds public hatred of minority groups.
You don't have any evidence to support your position, Ray.
Again, I think your analogy is awfully shaky. Where are the Mormon equivalents of the great Jewish authors? Or the great Jewish musicians? Face it: Mormonism crushes these sorts of impulses. As Eugene England said, "The first great Mormon author will be excommunicated from the Church."
So let me see. How long have the Jews been in existence? Since 1830? Got it. Mormons, by the way, do excel at science.
Once again, we find your analogy straining credulity.
No, since your quote require that antis, exmos, and so forth cleave to "spiritual forces." The reason---as evidenced by your own quote---that anti-Semitism flourished had to do with its connection to religious belief. If you would like to demonstrate how RfM and its ilk dabble in some kind of spiritual mysticism that will eventually cause people to irrationally attack Mormons and Mormonism, then I'm all ears.
This is what I mean by your lack of comprehension. See my remarks to Bond, but I doubt you'll "get it".
I read your remarks to Bond, Ray. You said that Luther's "language" led to the Nazis. I disagreed. It is as simple as that.
Again, the problem with your comparison (in my opinion) is that your own sources view religion as being necessary for the mindless, lockstep behavior and thinking that led to the Nazi genocide. Ex-Mormonism is, by definition, a lack of religion.
See above. Also, Ex-Mormonism is not "by definition" a "lack of religion", but it shows your own narrow thinking and crass prejudices.
Gee, it does? You are beginning to sound like Pahoran. Ex-mormonism is not a religion. Your sources cite religion as a necessary accompaniment to anti-Semitic genocide. 'Nuff said.
Were the Tanners non-religious? Is Ed Decker non-religious? Are all the posters on RFM non-religious? Ex-Mormons come in many varieties, not your prejudiced way of seeing it, Scratch.
Yes, and given your sources, the implication is that exmo pluralism seriously reduces chances of the kind of genocide you seem to be imagining.
Right. And posters on *this* board are "routinely stereotyped" as "brazen liars," lovers of porn, Sons of Perdition, "apostates," haters, vulgarians, etc., etc., etc.
I see far more of this coming from here, and RFM. And you'd have to be blind not to see that.
Ray. Look, it obvious what you're doing here. This whole discussion---in fact the bulk of ALL online discussion about Mormonism---is really a battle for moral superiority. It is about who is "right," and also about who is more "good." The chief difference between TBMs and exmos is that the TBMs are absolutists. They totally and uniformly insist that they are 100% right, and refuse to give an inch. Thus, they deserve to be subjected to the highest level of scrutiny, and to be utterly and completely condemned when they screw up. The day that the Church begins admitting that it has sometimes been wrong; the day DCP offers up sincere apologies for his various cheap shots; the day that the Church quits trying to paint people who leave as "rotten to the core" apostates and Sons of P.---that is the day that the criticism will start to wane.
Wow. Ray, honestly, how can you rely on that unadulterated crap from DCP? Really, that article was most definitely not one of his better moments. It is very intriguing that he has to rely upon Mormonism in order to demonstrate the "wrongness" of RfM. Can he not rely on "secular" means to deconstruct and effectively criticize "secular anti-Mormonism"?
If you can't see the wrongness of what he quoted as coming from RFM, then you wouldn't know the difference between a boy scout and a terrorist.
Because of its Absolutism, the Church and its representatives must be held to a much, much higher standard. They just don't deserve the same standards and treatments as others.
Where are you getting this, Ray? What is your evidence? Your own, private, personal barometer? Do you not notice that you are saying "the 'crap' has always been around" at the same time that you are saying "the criticism has reached a new tempo"? Does this not seem the slightest bit hypocritical to you?
This is what I mean by a severe lack of comprehension skill. A kindergarten child could see the differentiation.
Oddly, you seem unable to comprehend the contradictions in your own rantings. Post the evidence, Ray. Let us see for ourselves.
Also: has it ever occurred to you that much of this criticism would dissipate if the Church changed some of its uglier policies?
Like what? Name me some of these "ugly policies".
---No priesthood for women
---Heavy insistence on "obedience"
---sexual guilt
---old and unresolved racist policies
---closely guarded finances
---strident anti-homosexuality
---etc., etc., etc.
What could be uglier than the vitriol that comes from you?
How about your posts on this thread?
You and your vitriolic blog, and your constant yelling at the Church to "change!" Why do you want change so much?
Because it would improve the Church.
You still have not explained this to me. Is the Church a danger to the world?
Perhaps. I think at the very least it is a "danger" to certain aspects of life. Such as free thought and expression.
Are you a member of the Church? This is the great mystery.
The fact that you so intensely and aggressively desire to know tells me that I should keep it a secret. The truth is that I don't say because I prefer not to hear the same old, tired ad hominem attacks. Let me break it down for you:
---If I am a full-on member in good standing, you'll say: You are a traitor! We don't need 'ark steadiers'!
---If I am inactive, you'll say: You are a lazy slob and have no right to criticize!
---If I am an exmo, you'll say: You don't even pay tithing, and since you don't put in the work you have no right to criticize!
---If I am a nevermo, you'll say: You've never even been a member, you have no right to criticize!
See, Ray? It does not matter one iota what my membership status is. Your reply to me would be the same regardless. Or do you disagree? Why does the "mystery" upset you so much?
WHY does Scratch want The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to change so much??
Because it embarrasses and sickens me to know that the church of my family has been---and continues to be---guilty of so much ugliness.
Meaning, of course, that angry writings such as DCP's article, when connected to the "spiritual forces" of Mormonism, will eventually lead to a mass hunting down of ex- and anti-Mormons. Your own source requires religion as a factor, Ray.
Was Mao religious? Was Stalin? Are the Chinese running Tibet because of their religious beliefs? Do you think Saddam believed one word of the Qur'an? No, Scratch, you're just showing that as well as being an anti-Mormon you are also anti-religion.
Nice try, Ray. Perhaps you will use a source that better supports your position next time. Instead, you've shot yourself in the foot.
Again, Ray, you seem confused. On the one hand, you say the "vindictiveness" is ratcheting up, and yet on the other you say, "I think....they don't [indicate general ex-Mormon sentiment]." Which is it? Have you built yourself a nice little anti-Mormon straw man to take your aggressions out on?
The vindictiveness is increasing on forums where exmos post.
Then prove it! Show me real evidence.
I do not know the minds of what the 50% or so of exmos and inactives in America think. From what beastie says, they are just as angry but don't express it. In fact, she says her sister shows more dislike of the Church than she does, but never expresses it publicly. I do not know, because in my part of the world exmos say little, on forums or in real life. They have a simple philosophy - Live and Let Live. Get on with your life.
Wise Aussie words indeed. Perhaps you should heed them, Ray.
Then again, perhaps the Church will change its ways, and no one will have anything to complain about.
I ask you again, what is your agenda? Are you a member of the Church? Why are you so anxious for change? WHAT do you want to change?
See above.