Shout out to RenegadeofPhunk!!!

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Ray A

Post by _Ray A »

Mister Scratch wrote:Well, I believe that people are more complex than you would apparently allow me to think. for what it's worth, DCP also has "an open hatred" towards me, whereas I think that the Good Professor is probably a pretty good guy on the whole. Sure, he messes up once in a while, but is likely a good guy overall. You will be hard pressed to find him saying anything decent about moi.


Well I cannot speak for DCP in regard to you, but from what I know of him and my opinion on this matter, is that he does not have any kind of hatred of you. That's my opinion. I don't believe he hates anyone, and because he sometimes responds to critics that doesn't mean he hates them. They are the object of "study", and I think he's more shocked at what he sees than having any hatred.

I'm glad to see you expressed such positive opinions. I would really like to see you and DCP engage on a better and more profitable level of discourse. Despite messing up once in a while yourself (we all do), I think overall you're okay. You like to have a bit of fun (and I'm not offended at your blog entry about me overall), but sometimes some statements and charges can be very personal and offensive. You need to understand what those are, and the difference between light-hearted comment, and offence.
_Ray A

Post by _Ray A »

Beastie,

I had actually read your story before. What comes through to me in your post is, frankly, bitterness at the Church. Given your circumstances I suppose that's understandable, in light of how you explain it as betrayal by spouse. You've had your say, and I think this experience bothers you greatly. You're not a fire-spitting angry exmo, but you have some issues to deal with, which have left a lingering bitterness. I've probably inflamed that, and you're usually a very reasonable person, so I don't want to add any more to your fire. I feel like I could now be up on an arson charge. :)
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

No, I'm not bitter towards the church. I once was, which I stated in my post, but am no longer. You appear to be focusing on my statements about my earlier state of mind, the state of mind which found RFM more compatible.

Mormonism just one of my steps in my lifelong journey. I like who I am today, and obviously Mormonism had something to do with that, so I'm not bitter about it.

If you're going to continue responding, I'd like you to respond to this speculation of mine:





In the end, I believe that the reason you justify the institutionalized bigotry in Mormonism – note I am not saying, nor did I ever say or imply that all Mormons are bigots – but, as you yourself agreed and defend, there is institutionalized bigotry in Mormonism – the reason you justify is, quite simply, the same reason as the people on MAD justify it.

You are certain you are right, and that the LDS church is, indeed, the “one true church” and people who fight against it are doing Satan’s bidding.


I really don't know what else to conclude. When you look at that long list of pejorative adjectives, and realize at least half originated with either you, Ray, or leaders of the church, you realize that believers are just as prone to attack exbelievers as vice versa. For some reason, that is ok with you. We're supposed to "wear it", while believers are justified in calling exmormons Lutherites who contribute to future violence.

I can't think of any other reason why other than the one I just stated.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_Ray A

Post by _Ray A »

beastie wrote:I really don't know what else to conclude. When you look at that long list of pejorative adjectives, and realize at least half originated with either you, Ray, or leaders of the church, you realize that believers are just as prone to attack exbelievers as vice versa. For some reason, that is ok with you. We're supposed to "wear it", while believers are justified in calling exmormons Lutherites who contribute to future violence.

I can't think of any other reason why other than the one I just stated.


I remember someone once asked Dan Vogel whether he was atheist. His reply, as far as I can remember, is that it depends on what mood he's in and what's on the news. I'm sure it was tongue-in-cheek, with some truth. We all have those moments when we question everything. in my opinion pure hard logic isn't the best approach. The discussion on MAD now about psilocybin is a case in point. For some reason, no other spiritual experience I have had in my life was equivalent to what I experienced when reading the Book of Mormon. For me, this was an "outside" experience, for want of a better word. Not comparable to any other spiritual experiences, and for me anyway, very different. I think Gene England felt the same, and he said, to the ridicule of many, that he could seldom read a line of the Book of Mormon without feeling tears welling up. Maybe we are just well and truly screwed up in the head, but it is something we cannot just put on the shelf, cannot just ignore. I explained this on RFM in 2002, to howls of laughter from the mockers [in the great and spacious building] (The bracketed portion will offend you.)

Logically, there is a lot I "don't get", a lot of loose jigsaw pieces, and putting it together has been just about impossible. I don't have a "TBM" testimony. But I do have a testimony of the Book of Mormon. If there is a true church, then I do believe it is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, yes. But I'm not going to announce this from the rooftops, and I don't feel any need to defend or promote this, like "the people on MAD" do.

I am sympathetic to Mormons, and yes more tolerant of their foibles than exmos, because of my belief in the Book of Mormon. But I still don't see the hatred emanating from them that I do in angry exmos. You obviously don't agree. I do see much angry ex-Mormon comment as being very similar to what Martin Luther said about Jews. We will have to disagree on that point.

So in principle I stand by my belief in the Book of Mormon, even though I don't follow Church teachings. I know one former branch president who left the Church for 20 years, and in that time denied everything! But one day his eyes were once again opened, and he said, "it's time to go back". It was a revelation to him. He remained faithful for the last 20 years, and recently died at age 96. We can feel the wind blow, but we don't know where it comes from, or where it will take us. I don't see any point in being bitter or resentful about my Mormon experience. I could blame Mormonism for a very, very difficult life, how hard you don't know. At the worst point of my life, separation and divorce, and loss of all of my children, with fleeting thoughts of suicide, do you know what I did? I knelt down and prayed to God for the strength to conquer. Week by week, month by month, year by year, I was somehow given that strength. It could have been my imagination, but I do believe it was God. For these reasons, also, I continue to believe. All of these experiences came because of Mormonism, because one day in mid-1974 I opened the Book of Mormon, and the first words I said, upon reading a few verses, were, "this book is a revelation from God". So I see all of my life experiences as stemming from that, good and bad, bitter and sweet. I could look back and curse God, and "that Church" and "that book", but instead I say, like President Kimball, "give me this mountain, give me these challenges", because they have made me a better and much stronger person. That, I suppose, is why I'm not bitter.
_marg

Post by _marg »

Ray A wrote: So I see all of my life experiences as stemming from that, good and bad, bitter and sweet. I could look back and curse God, and "that Church" and "that book", but instead I say, like President Kimball, "give me this mountain, give me these challenges", because they have made me a better and much stronger person. That, I suppose, is why I'm not bitter.


If you say it often enough Ray maybe you'll eventually convince yourself you aren't bitter.

And then, just maybe, you won't feel the need to express on message boards how Mormonism impacted you so negatively in your life and how you aren't bitter about it.
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

Ray,

While your answer wasn't explicit, I interpret it to be generally a "yes" answer to my question. You generally believe the church to be true, will probably return one day, and view people who openly oppose the church to be influenced by Satan.

That is the entire reason you are unable to see what appears to be obvious to me, not only from that list of telling adjectives, but from years of experience - the bad behavior is equally distributed on both sides, including what you term "hate speech".

So this particular difference of opinion will never be resolved between us. You will continue to feel justified describing exmormons in volatile, inflammatory terms, while objecting to exmormons who do the reverse. You feel justified because the church IS true, and people fighting it ARE doing Satan's will And I will continue to object, if I'm around to see it.

This is the same reason that MADdites detest RFM while seemingly remaining oblivious to their own burdens of institutionalized "bigotry" and "hate speech". If God says it, it isn't bigotry or hate speech, it's the truth.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_Rollo Tomasi
_Emeritus
Posts: 4085
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:27 pm

Post by _Rollo Tomasi »

Ray A wrote:But how does this amount to a "smear campaign"? According to one definition a smear campaign is:
A smear campaign is an intentional, premeditated effort to undermine an individual's or group's reputation, credibility, and character. "Mud slinging", like negative campaigning, most often targets government officials, politicians, political candidates, and other public figures. However, private persons or groups may also become targets of smear campaigns perpetrated in schools, companies, institutions, families, and other social groups.

The fact DCP and his "circles" were discussing Quinn's private sex life, with one even going so far as to discuss it with Quinn's SP, qualifies as a "smear campaign" to me. LDS leaders and apologists wanted to stop Quinn's continued writing of controversial Mormon topics, and the best way to do that was to smear his personal life (much like Joseph Smith and early Mormons leaders did to those members who accused Joseph Smith of adultery and polygamy).

Quinn was divorced in 1985 ....

Actually, it was 1986.

... and there was speculation about the reason for his divorce.

In other words, gossip and rumors.

I am also quite certain that I knew about Quinn's homosexual orientation well before 1996, but I cannot remember the sources from which I obtained that information. The orientation of many people who eventually "come out" is often known well beforehand, especially to those who move in the same "circles".

And this somehow excuses discussions about one's personal sex life behind his back? Or informing that person's SP?
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."

-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
_Rollo Tomasi
_Emeritus
Posts: 4085
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:27 pm

Post by _Rollo Tomasi »

Ray A wrote:
Rollo Tomasi wrote:I took DCP's statement above to mean that his "friend" brought it up to Quinn's SP (which, in my mind, is even more malicious than the SP breaking a confidence), not the other way around. DCP can deny all he wants, but his own words establish his role as gossip in this affair, and no amount of spin can change that.

Well you took it the wrong way.

No, I didn't.

Quinn's sexual orientation was already known to his SP when DCP's friend met with him, and the purpose of the meeting was not to discuss Quinn. His friend did not go to the SP to "bring up the issue of Quinn".

BS -- Quinn's SP didn't even know the inactive Quinn had recently moved into his stake. And DCP did not say whether the SP or his friend raised the issue with the other.

You're saying now this was "gossip". That's very different, in any case, to a "smear campaign", or even an attempt to discredit Quinn.

Among LDS leaders and apologists, I think it was definitely a smear campaign to destroy Quinn's credibility because of his very damaging LDS writings.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."

-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Post by _Mister Scratch »

Ray A wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:Well, I believe that people are more complex than you would apparently allow me to think. for what it's worth, DCP also has "an open hatred" towards me, whereas I think that the Good Professor is probably a pretty good guy on the whole. Sure, he messes up once in a while, but is likely a good guy overall. You will be hard pressed to find him saying anything decent about moi.


Well I cannot speak for DCP in regard to you, but from what I know of him and my opinion on this matter, is that he does not have any kind of hatred of you. That's my opinion. I don't believe he hates anyone, and because he sometimes responds to critics that doesn't mean he hates them. They are the object of "study", and I think he's more shocked at what he sees than having any hatred.

I'm glad to see you expressed such positive opinions. I would really like to see you and DCP engage on a better and more profitable level of discourse. Despite messing up once in a while yourself (we all do), I think overall you're okay. You like to have a bit of fun (and I'm not offended at your blog entry about me overall), but sometimes some statements and charges can be very personal and offensive.


Well, the Good Professor sometimes makes "statements and charges" which are "very personal and offensive."

You need to understand what those are, and the difference between light-hearted comment, and offence.


Likewise.
_Ray A

Post by _Ray A »

beastie wrote:Ray,

While your answer wasn't explicit, I interpret it to be generally a "yes" answer to my question. You generally believe the church to be true, will probably return one day, and view people who openly oppose the church to be influenced by Satan.

That is the entire reason you are unable to see what appears to be obvious to me, not only from that list of telling adjectives, but from years of experience - the bad behavior is equally distributed on both sides, including what you term "hate speech".

So this particular difference of opinion will never be resolved between us. You will continue to feel justified describing exmormons in volatile, inflammatory terms, while objecting to exmormons who do the reverse. You feel justified because the church IS true, and people fighting it ARE doing Satan's will And I will continue to object, if I'm around to see it.

This is the same reason that MADdites detest RFM while seemingly remaining oblivious to their own burdens of institutionalized "bigotry" and "hate speech". If God says it, it isn't bigotry or hate speech, it's the truth.


Of course, there's no difference. You can't see it. The posters here can't see it. So obviously there's no difference. Well, I'm sorry to break your heart, beastie, but just about everyone else sees it. But, please yourself. After all, it took you five years to wake up to what I was saying about Steve Benson when he first started posting in 2002. Not to worry. I am patient.
Post Reply