beastie wrote:I will keep that in mind. The cesspool must not be all that bad after all, eh?
As I explained, I will reply to personal comments, when I feel it necessary.
beastie wrote:Well, this is a typical strategy. You're following the lead of apologists who pretend that critics who state that feelings are not an adequate basis for making judgments concerning the validity of certain truth claims, such as "was there once a group of Judeo Christians living in ancient Mesoamerica?" are really saying that feelings are worthless in general.
There's nothing wrong with intuition or feelings. You have created a strawman. I said that you change your reasoning in response to your feelings about the individuals making the arguments. If they've hurt your feelings, you switch sides. That isn't intuition.
I'll say some more on this. I have been critical of both exmos and Mormons, over the last seven years on the Net. My criticisms of exmos have been far more severe. I have empathy for some exmo causes, but I believe they have and are doing long-term damage by their responses. Okay, so the Church is "bigoted" in response to exmos. How do we solve this problem? For a start I don't see a solution, because it would deny the very foundational premises of Mormonism. The comment you quoted was when, I think Joseph Smith, said that "Oliver Cowdery had no other dumb ass to ride than David Whitmer". It is true that reputations were blackened. Apostates were not treated with civility, but when they returned they were welcomed, like William Clayton. Joseph Smith freely forgave anyone who came back, and Clayton's case is one of the best examples. This is not a compromising religion in regard to basic truth claims. Well you're going to be shocked when I say - wear it. This is a simple fact about Mormonism. They are 100% convinced they have the truth. Can you expect them to react any differently?
As for "switching sides", the problem here with your comment is that I have never "switched sides". I have offered quite strong criticisms of some LDS beliefs, but at the core I have never lost my basic belief in the spiritual truth of the Book of Mormon. I have also been critical of "TBMism", and what I perceive to be narrow-mindedness. In case you haven't noted, I seldom if ever post on doctrinal threads on MAD in which they are discussing things I don't believe, or have trouble believing. I see no need now to stir up a hornets' nest. I also acknowledge I could be wrong, so I keep an open mind. Where I do "switch sides" is when I consider some views to be narrow (Mormon or ex-Mormon), and this was abundantly clear to me on Borde's forum. But one of the frequent criticisms of MAD is that they are "Internet Mormons". I prefer the term Liahona, which was created by Mormon historian Richard Poll. The Liahonas are people who continue to believe despite having strong reservations about some teachings, and parts of LDS history. The problem is that a Liahona can be seen as an apostate, in the superficial sense (and both Harold B. Lee and JFS have been very critical of them). They can be seen as having a finger in every pie, or one foot in, one foot out, but at the core, they are still believers. I should mention, incidentally, that Poll's book, Reflections of A Mormon Historian, was given to me years ago by a "TBM" missionary couple, who recognised that although I was out of the Church, I retained my basic beliefs. This was the same Elder who slammed his hand on my dining room table when I mentioned covert polygamy. When Noel says I am "all about the place", it's because I don't hold fundamentalist views like he does. This can leave, and does leave me open to criticism from both sides. There are some things in Mormonism I am critical of, but people misunderstand if they think that my voicing criticisms means I have rejected Mormonism. I am in agreement with Harold Bloom that Joseph Smith was a "genuine prophet". And more than that, I believe that the Book of Mormon is divinely inspired. I have struggled with doubt, and my belief is not "beyond a shadow of doubt", but it is strong enough that I feel I cannot in good conscience deny it. I would feel terrible if I did, and no "reasoning" can change that. So the "logical thinkers" have a field day analysing me. There is more to life than pure logic. Some things about "TBMs" do turn me off. Lots of things about exmos turn me off, and I do admit that they rile me far more. But as I said, my basic allegiance lies with Mormonism, and always has! If people on the "other side" perceive me as being on their side, maybe that's because they are engaging in wishful thinking, and not carefully reading what I write. If you read my former signature line you'd think I was a budding atheist. I quoted Jefferson, whom I consider to be one of the greatest minds who ever lived, but also very complex! If you took one or two of his quotes you could entirely misread his broader views. The reason I changed that signature is because I realised that I may have been unintentionally leading some astray. It does not matter now anyway, because I have no intention of posting here, except for replies like this one.
Then there was B.H.Roberts, the "devil's advocate". I am a lot like Roberts. But in the end, I am also like him - a believer. Maybe a "ruffled believer", but still a believer. And for this I will be criticised by both "sides".
beastie wrote:I explained myself in that thread. But aside from that, it's interesting that you seem to equate calling for bigotry to stop with "destroying" the church. No, it's not interesting, I take that back. It's bizarre.
Almost as bizarre as your equating my concern about possible violence with exmos being Nazis. The possible violence I referred to was like what happened in Virginia. All it takes is ONE disgruntled lunatic to kill people, and I said this in my replies to you! It is also not out of the question that in the future Mormons will be treated like Jews, and they may need to form their own anti-defamation leagues. There is so much distortion and angry exmo hatred against Mormons that this is of REAL concern to me, and no one can really forsee the consequences. The fact that a Mormon is running for president means zilch! Jews have long been prominent in world affairs, but this has not stopped anti-Semitism. I know of an Australian Rabbi who was bashed to death in America because he was - Jewish, and a Rabbi.
beastie wrote:I quoted your exact statements from the thread, Ray, I didn't paraphrase or generalize.
And no, as long as you keep making these sort of statements and then accuse exmormons of engaging in vile hate speech, if I happen to be around reading the thread, I will continue to comment on your hypocrisy. It's easy to spot your hypocrisy in this regard by altering your own words, which I did on this thread. If an exmormon had said this:An angry mo is a restless and disgruntled soul who can't find rest. Like a barnacle that attaches to a boat it wants to sink because it's jealous the boat is sailing with full strength while its own anchor keeps it tied to the ocean floor, sinking deeper and deeper. Is there any more pathetic a sight then one who seeks to destroy those who left their faith, all the while trying to convince others to leave their own faiths for Mormonism? They bite the hand that was once its brother. Like traitors sucking on blood, they lust after any blood left in those who no longer believe.
You'd be using it as an example of vile hate speech that will engender future violence.
I stand by that statement. The angry exmo is a leech. And you are now defending them! Are you, by chance, an angry exmo in disguise? I hope not, especially since you wanted to dissociate from RFM.
beastie wrote:Jeez, Ray. Wake up. The exmormons taking digs at Mormons are doing it because of their own history of contention with those people. Are you ignorant of those disputes? Some of them have been discussed quite a bit on this board. You have no idea what kind of history exmormons have with the apologists they now "dig", do you? Do you see how Juliann treated Maggie Mormon on MAD? She has established that sort of history many times over. I haven't had as many interactions with DCP to make the same statement, but I would imagine it's true. Do you really think that the snide, dismissive, often outright rude behavior of "notable" apologists towards critics and even wavering believers like Maggie doesn't have consequences?
Juliann was critical of Maggie because she felt her criticisms were overboard. Not temperate, but overboard. MAD is not the place to atom bomb your ward. Maybe because Maggie is a novice she doesn't realise this. She should have referred posters to her blog only, and respected that Mormons on MAD don't want to continually hear her gripes. These are issues every individual has to "deal with". I think what Juliann was concerned about is that Maggie seems to be in some kind of transition, and Juliann has seen, too often, such people become angry exmos, after professing love and tolerance for Mormons. The "slippery slope". They go from mild critics to outright anti-Mormons. I don't think Juliann would have had a problem with Maggie, if she had not voiced so many criticisms. You tire of my criticisms of exmos, don't you? Turn the tables, beastie, and try to understand how Juliann feels in this regard. You fume and fret about my criticisms of exmos, but you expect Maggie to have full reign on MAD to light a fuse on her ward?
beastie wrote:This is just like the thread where I demonstrated the institutionalized bigotry of the LDS church and explain how this begins the cycle. You more or less shrug your shoulders and insist it will never change and then hypocritically focus only on one side of the cycle.
And you focus on - the exmo side?
beastie wrote:For heaven's sake, Ray, was someone else posting under your screen name? You repeatedly compared exmormons to Luther.
Luther, yes, not Nazis. Luther's hate speech against Jews is the same as angry exmo hate speech against Mormons. They are "charlatans", "liars", "deceivers", seeking to "dominate the world", and controlling the world's finances. Where is all of this irrational hatred going? Which lunatic, in future, will latch on to this and take a gun to innocent Mormons? This is what I meant by saying, "you will have blood on your hands".
beastie wrote:And which one of us is demanding that Shades not let the defamation stand? Which one of us is acting like this sort of rhetoric will result in actual acts of violence?
The difference between us, Ray, is not that I behave and you don't. The difference is that I am able to put these sort of interactions in perspective, and don't go off on rants about how Mormons are going to encourage acts of violence against apostates because we're minions of satan.
Speak for yourself. I will depart from my counter-attacks and say I think you have the capability to be a very fair-minded person. I have always respected your intelligence, and still do. I really think you underestimate your fellow exmos. Or maybe over-rate their ability to reason properly. When you said you were done with RFM my opinion of you rose a few notches. You may think I'm engaging in offensive talk, but I really don't think you've seen the "true colours" of the people you defend. You really, naïvely think they will be as rational as you are. You completely, entirely, underestimate they capability for more evil against Mormons, more than just words. And if you continue to defend them, I will oppose you.
beastie wrote:I was viciously attacked by believers on ARM, back when I first went there. One even said I was a mentally ill liar for saying that, as a Mormon believer, I had read and believed that Heavenly Father had physical relations with Mary to conceive Jesus. That's why I stopped participating there. The level of hyperbole was ridiculous, the ratio of signal to noise far too low to make it worthwhile. But I have never blown it out of proportion and pretended the way I was treated on ARM by believers, and on RFM by some exmormons, is a sign that Mormons are inciting hatred against apostates which will eventually end in mass acts of violence against us.
"Us"? Who is "us"? Again you don't differentiate. Are Cabbie and Benson one of "us"? You dislike the extremes in exmos as much as I dislike the extremes in "TBMs". The difference is that my allegiance lies with Mormonism, yours with ex-Mormonism. And I tolerate extreme views in Mormons just like you tolerate extreme views in exmos. We all have our biases, I guess.