A couple of Ray’s comments:
What's the difference between you and VR? Vegas speaks what bitter apostates like you think. That much I will give him. Don't try to increase your credibility by distancing Vegas. He's one of you, and you've said nothing about him before this. So don't turn on him to make you more credible in my eyes, you two-timing A-hole.
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.
My observations:
TBMs often fuss that exmormons won’t let them speak for themselves. But this is not the first time a True Believer has resorted to mind-reading tactics. Exmormons are tarred with one brush because, even if they behave more circumspectly than others, they’re still “thinking” the same thing. We’re supposed to police our own, and force them to behave somehow. Even though I’m not the one who thinks RFM is a vile cesspool of Lutherites breeding hate speech to inspire future Nazis, Ray seems to think it is my job to police them.
This is yet one more tired double standard, as TBMs don’t do a very good policing each other, either. If I go by Ray’s logic, every TBM who hasn’t policed the likes of Pahoran, or, on the old ARM board, “Red” – the TBM who broke ground with me and showed me the ugly side of Mormon/exmormon interactions by calling me “mentally ill” because I stated that I had read, and believed that HF had sex with Mary as a Mormon – then all these other believers are silent because they agree. The Pahoran and Reds are simply saying what the others
think.
Of course you, Ray, prefer Benson to Scratch, because Benson plays the part you want us all to play.
Look in particular at this sentence:
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
It is very difficult for me to understand how you can type these words and not see your rank hypocrisy. This is exactly what apologists do – well, some of them. There are quite a few Bensons in their ranks, too.
The point that you seem incapable of truly registering to the point where it affects your thinking on this matter is that both sides believe the other to be horribly mistaken, and some of the mistakes seem so glaring it is inevitable that incompetence or degree of willing deception – for a cause – is involved.
The entire
pointof MAD is to expose the sinner, and his lack of ethics.
Once more I quote Pratt:
" this book must be either true or false, if false it is one of the most cunning wicked bold deep-laid impositions ever pawned upon the world. Calculated to deceive and ruin millions who will really receive it as the word of God and suppose themselves securely built upon the rock of truth, until they are plunged with their families into hopeless despair. The nature of the message in the Book of Mormon is such if true no one can possibly be saved and rejected. If false no one can possibly be saved and receive it. If after a rigid examination it be found an imposition it should be extensively published to the world as such the evidences and arguments upon which the imposter was detected should be clearly and logically stated. So that those who have been sincerely yet unfortunately deceived may perceive the nature of the deception and be reclaimed. And that those who continue to publish the delusion may be exposed and silenced by evidences adduced from scripture and reason."
Pratt realized that the claims of Mormonism were so extreme that, if it were a fraud, then people would have a
moral responsibility to expose it.Today’s apologists whine mainly about why people who are completely convinced Mormonism is a fraud won’t just shut up and go away.
You know why I believe such a stark difference exists?
Because time has not been kind to LDS claims. The Book of Abraham papyri revealed what Joseph Smith “translation” talents really were. The growing information about ancient American reveals how little the Book of Mormon resembles any actual past culture. Historical research reveals problematic past prophetic teachings and actions.
Pratt lived during the brief honeymoon period of Mormonism. Most of his culture actually believed the same ideas about ancient America as repeated in the Book of Mormon. That’s a little clue where the inspiration came from. The Rosetta Stone was yet to be fully revealed to the world. Prophets had yet to completely bungle, time after time, significant moral issues as well as theological ones. Mormonism was brand new, the main arguments against it were disputes over Biblical interpretation. Ah, the good old days.
Today apologists know that critics actually have quite a bit of solid information backing up their case, and they must fall back on their testimonies to get them through the night. No one would believe except for that. So they want critics to SHUT UP, and go to all sorts of extents to insist that NOT SHUTTING UP equates an abdication of morality and decency.
Ray has kindly provided an extreme example of just that.
And finally, this:
beastie wrote:
But when exmormons do it... well, we're bitter, prejudiced, bigots who are psychologically disturbed.
Bada Bing!
I couldn't have said it better myself. I always thought you very articulate, beastie. (The "goddess" obsessed with proving Mormons wrong.)
The double standard you have demonstrated here is so remarkable that this thread ought to be archived on RFM.
It’s fine and dandy for you to make such comments… because, well, you’re right. The church
is true. So we’re the bad guys. It’s ok for you, and church leaders, to call us names – sometimes in the
name of Jesus Christ – but when exmormons do so – well, we’re Lutherites, providing hate speech for future Nazis, who will one day have blood on our hands.
The hubris is astounding. Breathtaking.
And in your mind, totally justified.