beastie wrote:Apparently I am not making myself clear. I am not accusing you of changing your basic beliefs or disagreeing solely due to hurt feelings. I am accusing you of switching “sides” in one specific argument, based on whether or not your feelings were hurt by one side in particular. I tried to make this clear with my reference to the Juliann apostasy argument. You certainly seemed to agree with my assessment of Juliann’s use of the Bromley model, yet right on this thread, without any explanation or seeming reason other than the fact that I have “attacked” you you suddenly switched and began to use Juliann’s terms. You even bolded the word apostate so I would notice. Your response here is talking about something entirely different.
I have not changed my opinion about the definition of apostate as given by Bromley. You don't go on the Internet like McCue and Benson, you don't have a blog, in fact I can scarcely even remember if you ever posted criticisms of Dan Peterson (perhaps you have). You have given copious criticisms of Juliann, but there aren't many who haven't, at some stage. So I will now formally apologise to you for writing that, it was done in the heat of the moment, as far as the Bromley model is concerned, and in that sense, I don't believe you deserve the title "apostate".
beastie wrote:Why are you repeating this straw man argument even when I very explicitly debunked it earlier on this thread? I’m not saying feelings are useless or not important, just like exmormons who say feelings are not an adequate methodology to judge the veracity of certain historical claims (ie, did Judeo Christians live in ancient Mesoamerica) are not saying feelings have no value at all. This is one of the sillier apologetic distortions around, and it is tirelessly common.
Yes, Ray, feelings matter. I never said they didn’t. I said you were allowing your hurt feelings to lead your reasoning, as in the Juliann/apostate example I cited above. In regards to this specific argument, you seem to decide “which side is the bad guy” in terms of creating hostile feelings (or even imminent violence) based on which side most recently attacked you.
Well, you're wrong there, beastie. No one attacked me! This started when Dan Peterson started a thread on MAD about Mr. Scratch. I had been following Scratch's blog and board comments for a long time, and I felt most of the commentary was distorted, and specious. In other words, pleasing to the eye, but distorted. Dan also outlined what was said about himself on RFM. I had not seen all of those comments until Dan posted them. I had seen some in his signature lines, but not all that he collected. I felt it was time to say something, but before I reiterate what I said, here was Don Bradley's perspective:
I don't doubt that some people on RFM have genuinely suffered in their experience in the LDS church and culture. However, most of what I read on RFM does not tend to stir my compassion; it is simple nastiness. I visit the board on rare ocassions when I can't find an interesting thread anywhere else, and I post about once a year. I would read there more often, but it's difficult for me, even as a nonbeliever in Mormonism, to swim through that much bile.
If RFM were a place to try to straightforwardly deal with personal pain and transitions, and discuss Mormons and Mormonism from a sympathetic "we've been there" perspective, I might hang around long enough to hear people's stories and offer my condolences on their losses and my advice for their transitions. But that just isn't what I find every time I go there. I'll keep going, occasionally, but I don't expect much to change.
Do you agree with Don? I would like a straight-forward answer to this.
Here is more comment from Don:
I support the idea of "ex-Mormon," "post-Mormon," etc., etc. get-togethers, discussion groups, etc. But I don't think that participating in them should have to mean swimming in a moral and intellectual cesspool.
He is apparently unaware of Mr. Scratch's ban from MAD:
Personally, I would be happier if names like "Mr. Scratch" never appeared on MAD, and if personal attacks from the RFM side were allowed to die by benign neglect. And I'd be happier yet if such attacks never got started.
Don, apparently, is a lot smarter than I am.
The post that offended you appeared on page 8 of the "Signs of Recovery" thread:
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 943&st=140This is what motivated you to start your "? for Ray A" thread. This apparently offended you so much that you decided to become the prosecuting attorney. Yet I have been saying stuff like this since I was on FAIR, ages ago. Perhaps if I had ignored your thread that would have been the smarter decision, which is why I said Don is smarter than I am. He, apparently, doesn't visit cesspools, but like a delirious pig I jump into them. Now I'm wondering if I should really terminate here, and not even come back to this thread. Come to think of it, it would give me much more time on my days off too. But I'll go on for now, while I think about this some more.
beastie wrote:I’m glad you finally see this point. Exmormons who focus on particular TBM personalities are normally doing so due to past conflicts with them, just like you have done with Noel. This is no more a sign of their intent to inflame violence against either these people or Mormons in general than your statements about Noel are a sign of your intent to inflame violence against Noel or exmormons in general.
You seem to understand this with your last statement, so are you going to continue to describe this phenomenon in terms of extreme hyperbole when it occurs on the exmormon side?
The hyperbole against angry ex-Mormons will continue, you have my absolute guarantee. There will be no pulling back. Now, have I started a blog with Noel as my main subject of criticism? How many threads decrying Noel have I started
anywhere? How many threads have been started against Juliann and Dan Peterson? Where is your perspective, beastie? You really surprise me here. Has Noel been called the names Dan Peterson has been called? Have
I called Noel such names? The worst recent comment I can remember is saying that Noel has the intelligence of a rabbit. Dan Peterson would
love if that was all he had to contend with, and you read what was said about him. No beastie, you have completely lost your perspective here! There is
no comparison to what occurred between myself and Noel, and the vicious slander of Mormons by angry ex-Mormons. I am, frankly, very surprised you don't make this clear distinction. This tells me your thinking on this issue is really blurred.
beastie wrote:Did I clarify this above? I’m talking about, for example, your sudden use of Juliann’s terms on this very thread, when formerly you seem to also conclude she had not been entirely reasonable with the model. Without explanation, suddenly you change your mind.
As mentioned above, I do believe the term apostate should be reserved for special cases.
You object to LDS fundamentalism and made a point of that after your experience with the LDS board. You object to what you perceive to be exmormon fundamentalism and proceed to create extremist hyperbolic statements about their characters, intents, and “Luther-like” qualities.
Again, you don't see the distinction. And it looks like I can't be of much help. If you can't see the "cesspool" and "bile" that Don Bradley mentioned, and remember he posts as an ex-Mormon on a Mormon board, then no one can help you to see this distinction.
beastie wrote:You seem to be saying that to NOT attack apostates would be the equivalent of denying their own beliefs. Once again, you assert that this is such a fundamental part of Mormonism there is no way it will ever change. You may be right. However, why in the world would you expect exmormons to simply “wear it”, and then proceed to vilify them when they get testy and lash out?
Why has Richard Dutcher not lashed out? Why have the majority of exmos not lashed out? Are they all seething with secret anger against the Church? I don't see anything here in Australia. Even Noel is quite benign. Whatever I may say about Noel, I really can't say he's an angry exmo. I'm sure he has an agenda, but he's not an angry exmo. Have I ever called Noel an angry exmo? In fact, when he's not nitpicking or insinuating I'm a right wing fascist, we have had some decent conversations, and he's hardly a flame-throwing angry exmo, just more like a nuisance fly buzzing over your BBQ. Who would want to take to Noel with violence because I equated his intelligence with a rabbit? Come on, beastie, your comparisons here are wanting. I have also accused him of being un-Christian, but I've never said about him the things that have been directed at Dr. Peterson.
beastie wrote:Ray – you are trying to create a cause/effect relationship between the actions of a very mentally ill individual and mean things people say to each other. This is a very complex situation that cannot be so simplified. Moreover, I have repeatedly addressed this assertion by pointing to the fact that Mormons have institutionalized bigotry against exmormons and their leaders openly associate them with satan. Do you really think a mentally ill LDS fanatic wouldn’t be just as inclined to engage in acts of violence?
Of course many things can set off a mentally ill person with access to guns, and the result is tragedy. But this phenomenon is not restricted to any one group in particular. A Mormon could go off as easily as an exmormon. Do you deny this? If you do not, then you should be just as concerned about the institutionalized bigotry in Mormonism as you are about RFMers saying mean things about DCP. We bleed, too, you know.
Perhaps exmormons will have to form their own anti-defamation leagues, too, particularly in LDS enclaves like Utah and Idaho. This argument “anything is possible” is pointless.
Let's get back to our "terms of reference". I'm talking about angry ex-Mormons. No matter how many times I post what Dan Peterson relayed through his essay on secular anti-Mormons, I'm convinced it's not going to sink in, beastie. These people are
irrationally angry, and the evidence is in what they write. They
hate, and that hate radiates, and this is what I'm critical of.
beastie wrote:Would you object to this statement and even point to it as the type of rhetoric you believe could set off a disgruntled exmormon and incite him to acts of violence? Please answer this question.
Why are you so angry at
my rhetoric, beastie? You focus on my rhetoric, yet what have you done to tone down the rhetoric on RFM? Have you complained? Are you concerned at what Don Bradley calls a "cesspool of bile"? How come Don can see this, but you can't? He's an exmo too, but he posts on the board where you had to kill your password so you won't be tempted to post again? Why this draconian action? What is the gut-churning thing about MAD which makes you so, well, mad? I think you know what makes me mad at this place, because I've said so over and over. Again, it's nothing personal with Shades. I have to reiterate that. He had a vision for a free speech board, but I'm not convinced it's working. How come both Don and I can survive on MAD? Maybe it's because we actually
respect Mormons, and respect their rights to believe as they wish, and don't insult them?? Juliann actually listened very carefully to some criticisms from Don, about Maggie Mormon. And she quit and said she wanted to "tone down", because Don is a voice of reason. Do you think any Mormon is going to listen to the rantings from MDB? Perhaps some points will be taken (I'm thinking hard what they might be, though, help me Shades). I tried, and I hoped, that this board could really generate some very interesting discussions, but it has lost all balance. Where are the LDS posters? One here, one there, but by and large they have abandoned this board. Let me give you a clue: There is not enough civility towards LDS posters. Disagree with them, but do not lash out at them. Not saying you have, but even the term "institutional bigotry" can be offensive. It paints all Mormons as bigots, and this is certainly not the case. Let me remind you of David O. MacKay's defence of Sterling McMurrin, the "anti-Christ" of Salt Lake City. Let me remind you that it was Pres. MacKay who stopped McMurrin's excommunication. So where was the "institutional bigotry" there? Many Mormons objected to the excommunication of David Wright, and I'm quite certain I read something from Dan Peterson in the 1990s that he was not sure this was the best course to take. Do you think you're going to win any points by constantly referring to "institutional bigotry"? And inflaming Mormons? This is what happens on RFM. They attack, attack, attack. And when Dr. Peterson points out how vile those attacks are, guess who they blame? It's a joke, beastie. You say these exmo attacks come because of "institutional bigotry", but I have seen the fairness of individual Mormons in spite of this "institutional bigotry". What I think you want is a rationalisation of LDS theology, and you're not going to get it. The apostates who fight the Church, and are angry with the Church, will never have any voice or influence. They want change, then they go on forums and complain about how Mormons slurp soup, and what immoral, lying thugs apologists are. Great way to win Mormons! Gandhi would be proud.
beastie wrote:by the way, I think it’s silly to make generalizations about some vague group whose membership has been determined by incredibly subjective judgments openly influenced by personal bias. So when you talk about some group of “angry exmormons”, I don’t know who you are talking about.
As I suspected. Now turn this statement around and apply it to the "institutional bigotry" you talk about. All Mormons are trapped by "institutional bigotry". There are no exceptions. ALL TBMs are bigots. The exmos are the righteous crusaders fighting this bigotry. They win hands down. Every reasonable person can see how bigoted Mormons are. Don't post on MAD, because they have rules, and they are bigots. You can't insult them, so they are bigots. They have feelings, so they are bigots. They defend their religion, so they are bigots. They don't want to change or water down the revelations given by Joseph Smith, so they are bigots.
beastie wrote:I have said this repeatedly, and you seem to ignore it. Yes, Ray, there is bad behavior on both sides. You missed my entire point.
My point is that the exmormons who focus on specific TBMs like DCP or Juliann are usually doing so because of their past contentions with that individual – like you and Noel. I brought up Maggie to demonstrate my point. I’m not interested in discussing whether she was right or wrong to air her concerns, or whether Juliann was right or wrong to attack her. I am pointing out that there is history between individuals, and you use history as an explanation and justification for your own behavior but refuse to consider it as an explanation and justification for the very similar behavior of exmormons.
No comparison. Noel is a buzzing fly over a BBQ compared to angry exmos. Juliann is not the most tactful poster at times, and I think she has admitted this. In spite of your exchanges with Juliann, you were invited to MAD, and given Pundit status. You were given special privileges to go there and debate her, and criticise her, and I supported you in your arguments. I wanted a distinction made between exmos (who are the majority), and angry exmos. Now, I'm really not sure where you stand if you can't see the distinctions I'm making, and the clear differences. I'm sure you will clear me up on this. I still don't understand how (if you still do) you can post on RFM and by doing so give tacit acquiescence to such bile. You are even asking me, "who are the angry exmos?" If you can't see that, beastie, I wouldn't hire you as a security guard, because you wouldn't know the difference between a grandma going to bingo and Al Capone.
Sorry if I sound cynical.
beastie wrote:You are ignoring why I brought up the institutionalized bigotry of the LDS church – it is to demonstrate the fallacious nature of the TBM claim that they are justified in their anger and sometimes outright attacks on exmormon critics because exmormons started it first by attacking their religion. I made this point quite clear in my thread, and you are ignoring it and distorting my stated purpose.
What is your "stated purpose"? To get rid of institutional bigotry? Let me ask you this. IF what Joseph Smith claimed is true, is it bigotry to state those claims, and defend them? From your point of view, those claims are not true, and that's why you see this as "institutional bigotry". But a believer does not see it that way. So what should the believer do, abandon his/her claims to satisfy those who don't believe? You are approaching this from the premise that Mormonism is fraudulent. They are approaching it from the premise that it is true. How can you expect them to compromise? They could have a send off party for exmos, and drink some whiskey with them, and say "God bless, we understand, but we prefer to live with our delusions". And the moon is made of Swiss cheese and 99% fat-free rice-crackers. They believe, beastie, they really believe, and that's why they are uncompromising. I'm sure they would prefer to not offend, but they really believe, and if they are "bigots", then at least they are being true to what they believe. I see nothing offensive in being true to what one believes. Some exmos apparently do!
beastie wrote:I have no idea why you objected to my characterization of your argument, since have basically said the same thing I said.
Aside from that, where is all this irrational hatred of exmormons going? You know, the irrational hatred that is actually taught by Mormonism’s most respected and revered leaders? The kind that is espoused right over the pulpit in the name of Jesus Christ? Which lunatic, in the future, will latch on to this and take a gun to innocent exmormons?
The Tanners did receive death threats. So no doubt there are some lunatic Mormons around too. But LDS leaders today do not teach "irrational hatred". Sites like RFM justify hate speech. They allow it to occur. Can you imagine a Mormon Church president allowing Church members to describe exmos in this way?:
insane, tyrannical, cheap, bigoted, ill-mannered, irrational, sexually repressed, stupid, greedy, foolish, rude, poor tippers, sick, brain-dead, and uncultured.
Beastie, where is your perspective? This is the language of hate. It is not merely a theological difference. It is H-A-T-E.
So let me reiterate my comments to angry exmos, at which you were so OFFENDED:
Call me a prophet of doom if you like, but I have wiped my hands of this hatred, and if you can't see the hatred expressed on RFM, and among many on MDB, then you need an eye test.
Why has Dan brought this to attention in this thread? Because it needs to be brought to attention, so that good and honest people can discern between good and evil. And if you can't, then I leave you to discuss this problem with your Maker someday.
And remember, all you anti-Mormons now stirring hatred and bile against the Church - you will pay an awful price. Keep building your websites of hate, spread the word of hate, and as you sow, you will reap.
But according to you, beastie:
I’m just arguing this one specific point with you, because I think you are wrong. I think you are behaving just as poorly as the people you compare to Luther, and you are demanding that exmormons just “wear” the type of nonsense that you think is Luther-like when it comes from exmormons.
Every time this conversation has come up, I have explained that I’m not defending anyone’s bad behavior. I stood up to the bad behavior of Cabbie and Benson and now I’m standing up to your bad behavior. Your rhetoric is not so different from theirs, on this point. You just are on the other side. Cabbie, Benson, and you are engaging in extreme hyperbole that has little point other than to inflame.
Are you entirely naïve to believe that Mormons are somehow immune to acts of evil and violence?
My "bad behaviour"? Beastie, what have you done to curb the bad behaviour on RFM? Where is your voice??? I don't hear it. I hear Dan Vogel's, I hear Brent Metcalfe's, I hear Don Bradley's, but I don't hear yours! In fact, you post with them! And you acquiesce to their hatreds. Here you are, vocally, publicly, in an open forum calling ME on my "bad behaviour", while you say NOTHING
on RFM. Afraid of offending your fellow exmos? I offended them in 2002, and paid the price in permanent banishment, even when I had serious issues with Mormons. It has taken you
five years to wake up to Steve Benson. I got stuck into him as soon as he posted his trash, and immediately paid the price for it.
beastie wrote:Why should I differentiate when you don’t? I was trying to create your mirror argument. You take examples like on this board – people saying DCP is a gossip – and use this as an example of Luther-like bigotry? Give me a freaking break, Ray. Scratch is no Cabbie or Benson, and neither is Rollo.
Really? In some ways I respect Benson more. At least he has an open hatred. It is not disguised with contradictory, flowery language. Scratch praises DCP with one stroke, then in the next one he stabs him in the back. You are a nice fellow, DCP, but you are also a sinner being exposed, who has no personal or professional ethics. Praise him with one hand, slap him with the other.
beastie wrote:And if, by chance, you wonder why I insist that Rollo nor Scratch is a Benson or Cabbie, consider this:
I can well imagine Cabbie or Benson saying things like 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.
As I can imagine them linking Mormons to Nazis or Luther.
But out of Rollo, Scratch and you, only one of you has engaged in such behavior, as far as I know. This is exactly why I am being so critical of you, in regards to this point.
Of course, beastie, I'm the villain. You only see MY transgressions. My apology to you stands. I now think you are
sincerely misguided. I hope you will wake up one day. Bear with me, as I quote the Book of Mormon, that book which leaves me in an emotional stupor of illogical thinking:
15 For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to judge, that ye may know good from evil; and the way to judge is as plain, that ye may know with a perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark night.
Can I ask you one more personal question? Why do you always write "Mormons" with a lower case "m". Do you write "god" with a lower case "g" too?