? for Ray A

[_Mister Scratch]

When I asked Scatch if he was responsible for the comments about Dan Peterson on The Mormon Curtain, he avoided answering me, yet he constantly demands answers of others.

Which they often fail to provide. See your above posts for evidence. (E.g., where I asked you to demonstrate that "rabid anti-Mormonism" is ratcheting up in intensity. Instead of providing any evidence, you merely said, "It's obvious!" Wow. How persuasive.)

I recently checked The Mormon Curtain, and I see there is now only one post from Scratch. Formerly there were two. Now I could be mistaken, but I'm sure there were two. I'll check this later when I have more time.

Actually, there should be at least three---no, make that four...or is it five? Would you like me to find them for you?

I am not persuaded that Scratch is an honest person. He is the chief accuser of Mormons here, and, incognito, he launches his attacks and constantly psycho-analyses individual Mormons, reads their minds, and charges them with malicious motives and actions. Yet we do not know a thing about him, who he is, what he believes, and he intensely dislikes scrutiny of himself, and he takes pains to avoid that scrutiny by hiding his identity and his beliefs.

That's not true, Ray. I welcome any and all scrutiny of my arguments and posts. I explained above why it is pointless to clearly lay out my precise status in the Church, and you responded by telling me that I needed to visit a shrink.

He has said this himself. We still do not know which Scratch is the real Scratch. I initially didn't mind Scratch at all, and never really felt any strong animosity to him. He denied he was an anti-Mormon on the old MDB, so I took him at his word. On superficial appearances he appeared to be rather benign, even likable. But when he continued his obsession campaign of revenge, and engaged in twisted interpretations of what Dan Peterson said, and his personal, nasty revenge attacks against Juliann, I decided he was not so benign after all. This was more than just "entertainment". This guy has a gut hatred of Mormonism.

This simply isn't true, Ray.

He has an unhealthy and negative obsession with Mormonism, and trying to change it. It will, of course, be to no avail, because as I've said numerous times, why would any Mormon, especially a TBM, listen to the rantings of someone like him? If the very people you wish to change despise you, you have no chance. Mormons don't listen to anti-Mormons, they listen to the moderate voices who are friendly to them.

If what I say is so useless, then why bother criticizing it? You continue to dig yourself in deeper, mate.

[_Ray A]

I don't have time for a fully reply, Ray, other than to note you need to take responsibility for your own statements. Would it pass muster if I stated that you didn't "call" Scratch a mass murderer (Eichman) but rather COMPARED him to one? Is that better?

However you want me to phrase it to be acceptable, there was no excuse for it. I told you at the beginning of this thread when you did just that that you lost credibility with me on this issue.

Again, I am amazed. You and your minions here are trying to make me "an offender for a word" (ONE word), yet you don't call the RFMers on their constant, twisted and sick deluge of hate against Mormonism. Not good enough, beastie. So what if you go into this pig sty and hell hole of anti-Mormonism and call a few on their comments (and keep posting along with their sick commentary). Yet you are trying to nail me on one comment. beastie, your hypocrisy stinks! Disowning Steve Benson isn't good enough. At least you showed some sense in condeming Benson. But how you can join this mob of Mormon-haters is beyond me. Not one word of your archaeological studies will be further taken seriously by me, because your motives clearly show me you are not objective. You are no better than John Clark, or John Sorenson, the people you criticise. The real reason you can't/won't post on mad is because, like Scratch, you have this gut-wrenching dislike of Mormons. I won't put you in the same category as Scratch, Scratch does not dislike Mormons - he hates them.

[_Ray A]

I'm stunned. I really am. Coming from you this really gives me pause for thought. But I guess I never understood why someone as intelligent as you are would even go on RFM.

Or someone as intelligent as DCP. Or someone as intelligent as Hamblin. Why do you not question their intelligence? They go to the same website, don't they?

And there you go again, I called Scratch a "mass murderer"? Where Beastie?

That would be the reference to Eichmann. I'm pretty sure it's gotta be uncomfortable to be lumped with one of the most evil men to ever exist.

When I asked Scatch if he was responsible for the comments about Dan Peterson on The Mormon Curtain, he avoided answering me, yet he constantly demands answers of others.

And this is different from others who you haven't compared to Eichmann how? I'm just wondering why you've decided Scratch is in charge of the dark side here. Because he picks on DCP, he's evil? Because he points out the weaknesses of DCP's arguments? Because he ridicules DCP? I don't recall seeing the memo prohibiting that behavior, coming from church headquarters. Actually, I don't recall seeing anything about playing nice with church apologists specifically lately. Maybe you can post a link.

I recently checked The Mormon Curtain, and I see there is now only one post from Scratch. Formerly there were two. Now I could be mistaken, but I'm sure there were two. I'll check this later when I have more time.

Oh, so now he's dishonest, in addition to being lumped with a mass murderer? Thanks for the update.

I am not persuaded that Scratch is an honest person. He is the chief accuser of Mormons here, and, incognito, he launches his attacks and constantly psycho-analyses individual Mormons, reads their minds, and charges them with malicious motives and actions. Yet we do not know a thing about him, who he is, what he believes, and he intensely dislikes scrutiny of himself, and he takes pains to avoid that scrutiny by hiding his identity and his beliefs. He has said this himself.

Revealing personal information about oneself is not a requirement for posting here. Refusing to allow the spotlight to be shined on onself is not against the rules. Refusing to reveal personal information should not be used to infer honesty, since the two are not at all connected. Just because one uses effective arguments against the church's apologists doesn't make one an accuser of Mormons here. Try to cease conflating the church, as an entity, with the apologists for the church either at FAIR or FARMS. The two are not synonymous.

We still do not know which Scratch is the real Scratch. I initially didn't mind Scratch at all, and never really felt any strong animosity to him. He denied he was an anti-Mormon on the old MDB, so I took him at his word. On superficial appearances he appeared to be rather benign, even likable. But when he continued his obsession campaign of revenge, and engaged in twisted interpretations of what Dan Peterson said, and his personal, nasty revenge attacks against Juliann, I decided he was not so benign after all.

And since when do you get to make any interpretation at all, for the rest of us? My interpretation of Dan Peterson is nigh onto unprintable, and my interpretation of Juliann is similarly uncharitable, and I have good and sufficient reason for both. I imagine Scratch has similiar reasons.

This was more than just "entertainment".

And you get to make this determination for everyone else because..... why?

This guy has a gut hatred of Mormonism. He has an unhealthy and negative obsession with Mormonism, and trying to change it.

And you know this how? You have mysterious mind-reading abilities that allow you access to another's mind and motives? And you have no compunction about letting us see your extraordinary abilities in this matter here on the forum.... why?

It will, of course, be to no avail, because as I've said numerous times, why would any Mormon, especially a TBM, listen to the rantings of someone like him? If the very people you wish to change despise you, you have no chance. Mormons don't listen to anti-Mormons, they listen to the moderate voices who are friendly to them.

Then you have nothing to worry about, do you? You should be grateful to Scratch for his rhetoric, since it removes him from any Mormon's orbit.

I'd like to comment particularly about your statement:

If Mormons are going to make extravagant statements like "the LDS church is the one true church, the only church with the real priesthood of JC providing the necessary authority to provide saving ordinances, NO ONE ELSE has that authority", and then act dismissive, sarcastic, and judgmental towards those who criticize these claims, then you all ought to grow some balls and learn to live with harsh reactions.

You have said you were not at all interested in changing Mormons. But this "one true church" statement really seems to leave you in a tangle. I am no more offended by this than the statement of the Catholic Church that IT is the one true church. If you really think Mormonism is a dud, why does this bother you so much? You think the Book of Mormon was created by men, and is not inspired of God, and you have referred to this "weak God", whose existence you don't even believe in, who created a Church based on fictional claims, and gave an authority that doesn't exist, by Mormons who are such a small portion of the American people, who will have no influence on them, and yet you are deeply offended by the the "one true church" statement. This does not compute.

One word: family. Anyone who has who believes the LDS church is not the one true church, yet has family who does not see the church through the same paradigm, is working in a difficult situation.

I don't have any problem with the harsh criticisms.

You certainly do have a problem with the harsh criticisms, when those criticisms and that harshness is directed at either Dan Peterson or Juliann.

So I return your comment, beastie. Go tell your friends on RFM to "grow some balls". Life wasn't meant to be easy, but it's so easy to find scapegoats.

As you have. Scratch is convenient and accessible. You have just indulged in what that behavior which you accuse him of. Easy to do, isn't it?

Harmony, I don't get you. Why the hell don't you just resign from the Church? Think of all you could get done in the time you spend running down your own church. IE, shooting yourself in the foot.

[_Ray A]

When I asked Scatch if he was responsible for the comments about Dan Peterson on The Mormon Curtain, he avoided answering me, yet he constantly demands answers of others.

Which they often fail to provide. See your above posts for evidence. (E.g., where I asked you to demonstrate that "rabid anti-Mormonism" is ratcheting up in intensity. Instead of providing any evidence, you merely said, "It's obvious!" Wow. How persuasive.)

Look at your own HATE blog. That, and your constant denigrating of Mormons and Mormonism is enough evidence for me. Yet when "Mr. Itchy" started a blog, we never heard the end of it. Don't you see the stench of your hypocrisy? In a word, you are a bully, you can give, but you can't take. You represent the lowest form of cowardice know to human beings.

[_Mister Scratch]

When I asked Scatch if he was responsible for the comments about Dan Peterson on The Mormon Curtain, he avoided answering me, yet he constantly demands answers of others.

Which they often fail to provide. See your above posts for evidence. (E.g., where I asked you to demonstrate that "rabid anti-Mormonism" is ratcheting up in intensity. Instead of providing any evidence, you merely said, "It's obvious!" Wow. How persuasive.)

Look at your own HATE blog.

??? How is my blog supposed to constitute significant, persuasive, and incontrovertible evidence that "rabid anti-Mormonism" is "ratcheting up"? Are you saying that you consider my blog to be the same as RfM?

That, and your constant denigrating of Mormons and Mormonism is enough evidence for me.

But I'm only one guy, Ray! Also, I don't "hate" Mormons. If I hated all Mormons, that would mean that I would have to hate myself, and much of my own family.... That doesn't make much sense at all, mate!

Yet when "Mr. Itchy" started a blog, we never heard the end of it.

That is because the Itchy blog was clearly a stalker blog. He "outed" people and posted their private information even after they protested. Since we're on the topic of blogs, Ray, do you have a problem with Stan Barker's "Critics Corner" section of the SHIELDS website? You better come down on it pretty hard, lest you begin "stinking" of hypocrisy yourself!

Don't you see the stench of your hypocrisy?

No, I don't. Moreover, I don't claim to have the One Truth, or any such TBMish thing.

In a word, you are a bully, you can give, but you can't take.

I can take perfectly well, Ray. What do you think I have been doing this whole thread? At least I don't hide on a highly moderated TBM board, where critics cannot speak freely.

You represent the lowest form of cowardice know to human beings.

LOL.....

[_beastie]

Again, I am amazed. You and your minions here are trying to make me "an offender for a word" (ONE word), yet you don't call the RFMers on their constant, twisted and sick deluge of hate against Mormonism. Not good enough, beastie. So what if you go into this pig sty and hell hole of anti-Mormonism and call a few on their comments (and keep posting along with their sick commentary). Yet you are trying to nail me on one comment. beastie, your hypocrisy stinks! Disowning Steve Benson isn't good enough. At least you showed some sense in condeming Benson. But how you can join this mob of Mormon-haters is beyond me. Not one word of your archaeological studies will be further taken seriously by me, because your motives clearly show me you are not objective. You are no better than John Clark, or John Sorenson, the people you criticise. The real reason you can't/won't post on mad is because, like Scratch, you have this gut-wrenching dislike of Mormons. I won't put you in the same category as Scratch, Scratch does not dislike Mormons - he hates them.

Ray,

Where have you disassociated yourself from the Eichman comment? I missed it if you did, and apologize for that. If you have admitted that you were engaging in meaningless hyperbole to shock, then I will drop this issue. But until you disassociate yourself from the comment, I feel justified in asking you to take responsibility for what you said, particularly in combination with your other statements that provide additional support that you are asserting that RFM exmormons in general, and scratch in particular are filled with an evil spirit, spreading lies about Mormons and infecting the rest of society with their hatred, and the inevitable result will be violence against Mormons. Apparently you want to insist on the right to say such things, which you have, as well as the right to pretend you didn’t say such things, which you don’t have.

I rarely post on RFM. Why should it be my mission in life to criticize every statement they make that is juvenile or hateful? Do you still post on the uber-mormon board you once found offensive in order to call them to repentance? Do you post calls for repentance on FAIR/MAD? Have you accepted your calling as some sort of moral coast guard, patrolling the Mormon boards and calling them on their own silliness? Why should it be MY mission to do so on RFM? You are the one who believes RFM is going to create some sort of mass violence against Mormons, not me. I think it’s just one more of many examples of bad behavior on the internet – the context you studiously continue to ignore. I feel no moral obligation to stop some tidal wave of evil and violence that I don’t believe in, Ray. That’s your job, not mine.

I don’t care if you take any of my archaeological studies seriously or not. I have provided many references for each of my assertions, and those references are from the most qualified sources. I have provided references for my Book of Mormon interpretations. If you are going to decide that because I defended scratch from your malicious hyperbole, then I must have a “gut-wrenching dislike of Mormons” and hence you will ignore my research, then you aren’t my target audience anyway. I wrote those essays for people looking for information from informed sources in order to evaluate LGT apologia. You, on the other hand, apparently decide whether or not to take research seriously based on how you feel about the author. You’re not my target audience, clearly. Feel free to ignore it. In fact, I insist that you do. I will be embarrassed by your future support due to the irrational mess you have posted here.

John Clark is a fine, decent person. I have never criticized him personally, and have defended him against personal criticism on RFM. If I am no better than him, that is hardly an insult.

I have no idea what Sorenson is like, personally, but I do know he completely distorts his references, so I am “better” than him in that I carefully avoid doing so, and provide extensive citations to demonstrate that my sources say exactly what I claim.

I have criticized your malicious comparison of Scratch to a mass murderer, and, in your mind, that means I have a gut-wrenching dislike of Mormons. The illogic is stunning, but pretty consistent with your other statements here. But you have every right to construct whatever argument or opinion that pleases you.

Are you ever going to provide that promised additional evidence of your assertions?

[_Jersey Girl]

First, I'd like to say that I can't believe this is coming up again. Second, I'd like to say that I don't think you know what you're talking about Ray.


Ray

Look at your own HATE blog. That, and your constant denigrating of Mormons and Mormonism is enough evidence for me. Yet when "Mr. Itchy" started a blog, we never heard the end of it. Don't you see the stench of your hypocrisy? In a word, you are a bully, you can give, but you can't take. You represent the lowest form of cowardice know to human beings.

Where to begin? Ray, have you read all of Scratch's entries on the blog? My guess is that you haven't any more than you've read all of RFM in order to give a balanced summary.

Having said that, let me say this again (and I'll keep doing it so long as it keeps coming up)....when certain troll/posters on ZLMB complained about Scratch's use of Juliann and Pahoran's real life names on his blog (and how is it that I already knew them? Because their essays/articles were linked to from both FAIR and ZLMB that's how)

*I* made a post on this board directed to Mr. Scratch on November 4th, informing him of the troll complaints.

What did Scratch do? He deleted the real life name references the very next day on November 5th.

After he did so, the Z trolls kept posting and the Mr. Itchy Blog went online. The content of the troll posts and the Mr. Itchy Blog entries was such that they revealed real life names of posters whose real life identities were kept private as per their own wishes.

They also used real life names of fricking FAMILY MEMBERS and LOCATIONS.

Now, let me reiterate the difference here...

Mr. Scratch's blog contained the full names of Pahoran and Juliann which were already accessible via links on the FAIR and ZLMB boards.
When Mr. Scratch became aware of the complaint...he VOLUNTARILY REMOVED the names the very next day.

The response to that on the part of the Z trolls and Mr. Itchy was tocontinue to post real names of posters, their family members and locations.
When the posters complained the MODS on Z let the postings sit there for DAYS, Ray, totally unaddressed.

They REMAINED unaddressed until EZ Legal got involved and removed the information from within the posts.

The response of the Z Mods was to ban the posters who were involved in making the complaints about the real life information posted on Z.

Anything here seem screwed up to you? Do you not see the difference between Scratch's handling of the matter compared to the Ztrolls/Itchy/ZMods?

The icing on the cake: a number of FAIR/MAD posters were banned on November 5th (including myself which as I write this the light bulb goes on since it now makes all the sense in the world!) ...obviously to prevent any one involved from publicly posting about all of this on FAIR so all the FAIR folks would know about were the references on Scratch's blog (that were voluntarily removed)...not the Z trolls or the Itchy Blog, or the fact that Scratch remedied the situation in order to satisfy their complaints.

Give me a break.

Jersey Girl

[_Ray A]

But I'm only one guy, Ray! Also, I don't "hate" Mormons. If I hated all Mormons, that would mean that I would have to hate myself, and much of my own family.... That doesn't make much sense at all, mate!

So is this the first indication that you are actually a Mormon? Well what you are doing is not "reforming" the Church, you are white-anting it. Give me my anti-Mormons up front. You are the type of Mormon who President Benson referred to as not wanting to take the Church to the world, but wanting to bring the world into the Church. Why don't you make out a list of all the reforms you want? I'll be very interested to see that, because I suspect you don't even know specifically what you want.

[_Gazelam]

Yesterday Scratch defends a gospel principle, and today he admits to being a member of the Church!

This is a new Scratch, upfront and non-elusive. I like it.

[_Ray A]

*I* made a post on this board directed to Mr. Scratch on November 4th, informing him of the troll complaints.

What did Scratch do? He deleted the real life name references the very next day on November 5th.

After he did so, the Z trolls kept posting and the Mr. Itchy Blog went online. The content of the troll posts and the Mr. Itchy Blog entries was such that they revealed real life names of posters whose real life identities were kept private as per their own wishes.

They also used real life names of fricking FAMILY MEMBERS and LOCATIONS.

Now, let me reiterate the difference here...

Mr. Scratch's blog contained the full names of Pahoran and Juliann which were already accessible via links on the FAIR and ZLMB boards.
When Mr. Scratch became aware of the complaint...he VOLUNTARILY REMOVED the names the very next day.

The response to that on the part of the Z trolls and Mr. Itchy was tocontinue to post real names of posters, their family members and locations.
When the posters complained the MODS on Z let the postings sit there for DAYS, Ray, totally unaddressed.

They REMAINED unaddressed until EZ Legal got involved and removed the information from within the posts.

The response of the Z Mods was to ban the posters who were involved in making the complaints about the real life information posted on Z.

Anything here seem screwed up to you? Do you not see the difference between Scratch's handling of the matter compared to the Ztrolls/Itchy/ZMods?

Why did Scratch put the names up in the first place? Because a person's name is accessible on the Internet does not mean they would approve of someone else posting their names, especially someone hostile to them! Why does Scratch always have to be called on to post in good taste? Remember, he was putting these names up, and we still don't know HIS name. Now, I wonder how Scratch would feel if someone found out HIS real name and posted it? You see, this is the real problem with Scratch, as I have been saying, he wants and expects anonymity, yet he also wants the freedom to post full names and then attack those people. Juliann does not use her full name when posting on boards, everyone knows that, and the fact that her full name is accessible on the FAIR website means nothing! This is her preference, not to use her full name on forums. Ditto for Pahoran. It is this violation of personal preference that is at issue. Not whether names are accessible on some corner of the Internet. Many know Dr. Shades' real name, and I have respected his wish not to use his real name on the forums, and have never even used his first name. In fact anyone who doesn't know Shades' real name must be a newcomer to boards, since it's easily accessible on Z. Does that mean I can start a blog and reveal his real name, and do so in good conscience? You are defending Scratch for taking down the names. I am asking why they were put there in the first place?

Some of you here don't seem to understand why there's a backlash against you. You are like a dog who attacks someone, and when he gets clobbered back wonders what he did wrong. If you launch missiles into another territory, expect some missiles to return. It's the same with RFM. In the name of "recovery" this site lambasts and constantly attacks Mormons, and when they are called on they say, "oh, we are hurting and need to express ourselves". "We are 'only' venting." "It's all because we need this therapy." Well, don't whine when you get a taste of your own medicine from Mormons, and don't expect them to forever remain silent. Enough is enough. People can only take so much.