Ray A: The Gandhi of Internet Mormonism?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

Mister Scratch wrote:Uh huh. Right. You say, "Critic is wrong, go read the articles. I'm not going to explain how or why, nor am I going to provide any real counterargument or citation of text, I'm just going to tell you that I'm right, and leave it up to you to figure out how/why." Real convincing, Dan.

If the question involves the general tone and approach of our articles, the best way to answer it is to read at least a representative sample of our articles in their entirety.

Mister Scratch wrote:You think the tone of FARMS Review is on a par with New Republic?

I mentioned a "basket" of periodicals that I have in mind. And, yes, many of the articles in the Review are essentially comparable in tone to articles in the New Republic or in any academic journal.

Mister Scratch wrote:Further, are you now finally conceding that FROB is not "academic" in the more normative sense?

No.

Mister Scratch wrote:I'm still waiting for you to supply an example of an *actual* academic journal whose "purely academic" reviews carry on for 50+ pages

The length of many of our essays is among the aspects of the Review that are, by my personal decision and design, sui generis. However, many academic journals feature review essays, and not a few feature lengthy article-reviews from time to time.

That's why I suggest some substantial exposure to an academic library's periodical holdings as a remedy for the misimpression you seek to foster.

Mister Scratch wrote:and include accusations such as "Quinn is a bad historian.")

Such judgments are made all the time in academic journals. It's a rough world out there. The FARMS Review is by no means the toughest player in it.

Mister Scratch wrote:There is a lot of distance between saying, "some of this scholarship is unreliable," vs. saying, "Quinn is a bad historian."

Maybe. Maybe not. Both are well within the bounds of academic review-discourse.

Mister Scratch wrote:Why should the anonymity be a factor at all, Prof. P.?

I simply regard it as cowardly to engage in continual allegations of grossly unethical and even possibly illegal behavior against someone while hiding behind a pseudonym. I suspect that I'm not alone in that view.

Mister Scratch wrote:We both know that the Church monitors well over a thousand sites on the Web.

Actually, although I'm aware of that claim, I very much doubt that it's true. Based on my personal experience with the people who, I'm guessing, would be doing such monitoring if it were being done, I don't think it's happening at all.

But I've said that before, of course.

Merry Christmas, Scratch.
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Post by _Mister Scratch »

Daniel Peterson wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:Uh huh. Right. You say, "Critic is wrong, go read the articles. I'm not going to explain how or why, nor am I going to provide any real counterargument or citation of text, I'm just going to tell you that I'm right, and leave it up to you to figure out how/why." Real convincing, Dan.

If the question involves the general tone and approach of our articles, the best way to answer it is to read at least a representative sample of our articles in their entirety.


I have read a "representative sample." Your claims are completely off-base.

Mister Scratch wrote:You think the tone of FARMS Review is on a par with New Republic?

I mentioned a "basket" of periodicals that I have in mind. And, yes, many of the articles in the Review are essentially comparable in tone to articles in the New Republic or in any academic journal.


I strongly disagree. Could you please furnish a brief example of an article from, say, New Republic which is comparable in tone to Bill Hamblin's "That Old Black Magic," or your own, The Witchcraft Paradigm? (I would be interested in seeing you come up with a New Republic article which so egregiously violates citation standards as does your "Witchcraft Paradigm.")

Mister Scratch wrote:I'm still waiting for you to supply an example of an *actual* academic journal whose "purely academic" reviews carry on for 50+ pages

The length of many of our essays is among the aspects of the Review that are, by my personal decision and design, sui generis. [/quote]

Yes, and this is one of the reasons why I think that is incorrect for you to compare the "tone" of FROB to other, more reputable journals and magazines. C'mon, Prof. P.---where else are you going to find long hit pieces on internet critics? Where else are you going to find hack-jobs written up by complete amateurs, ala "The Anti-Mormon Attackers"?

However, many academic journals feature review essays, and not a few feature lengthy article-reviews from time to time.


They sure do. I can't argue with you there.

That's why I suggest some substantial exposure to an academic library's periodical holdings as a remedy for the misimpression you seek to foster.


In other words, "I'm not going to provide any examples or evidence, I'm just going to send you on your way! Trust me!" This reminds me very much of your refusal to provide evidence for your claim that there is a "consensus" regarding use of the word "magic."

Mister Scratch wrote:and include accusations such as "Quinn is a bad historian.")

Such judgments are made all the time in academic journals. It's a rough world out there. The FARMS Review is by no means the toughest player in it.


Once again: evidence? I'd like to see you name a journal that is more vitriolic and vicious that FROB. A specific few articles would be nice. A journal with a track record of this stuff would be even nicer.

Mister Scratch wrote:There is a lot of distance between saying, "some of this scholarship is unreliable," vs. saying, "Quinn is a bad historian."

Maybe. Maybe not. Both are well within the bounds of academic review-discourse.


I have never seen anything of this nature. Again: would you care to provide an example?

Mister Scratch wrote:Why should the anonymity be a factor at all, Prof. P.?

I simply regard it as cowardly to engage in continual allegations of grossly unethical and even possibly illegal behavior against someone while hiding behind a pseudonym. I suspect that I'm not alone in that view.


And, that you want to see me suffer. You've already demonstrated your penchant for vengeful and vindictive behavior. You want to complain about my blog, or my compilation of Mopologetic sins? You, Stan Barker, and the rest of your pals were doing this long before I ever arrived on the scene. You are still doing it, too, via your "RfM Archive."

Mister Scratch wrote:We both know that the Church monitors well over a thousand sites on the Web.

Actually, although I'm aware of that claim, I very much doubt that it's true. Based on my personal experience with the people who, I'm guessing, would be doing such monitoring if it were being done, I don't think it's happening at all.


Are you referring to the Confidential Services section of Church Security? And by the way, did you have to speak to these folks during your tenure as an "agent" for the SCMC?

But I've said that before, of course.


Yep. And I've disagreed before, of course.

Merry Christmas, Scratch.


Why, bless your heart, Prof. P.! Same to you! I know you regard me with contempt, but nevertheless I always have enjoyed sparring with you on these boards. It is great fun, and you are a worthy opponent.
_The Nehor
_Emeritus
Posts: 11832
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:05 am

Post by _The Nehor »

Mister Scratch wrote:
The Nehor wrote:You are clearly very angry and you allowed your white-hot wrath to bubble over in a very pathetic way. I mean, why go on the extended diatribe at all?


I didn't. I put up the offending post, and expressed my disapproval of it.

What was the usefulness of that? Why was it necessary for you to repeatedly use Bill "Anti-Semite" Hamblin?


Where've I done that, Nehor? I'm going to have to CFR you again, since you are obviously flailing about in desperation at this point.

Could you have gotten your basic point across without it? Yes, of course you could have. But you didn't. Instead, you let your anger get the better of you, and you went ballistic.


But.... I didn't 'go ballistic.' I merely posted the diatribe and commented on it. Certainly, there wasn't a long string of offensive epithets in my post!

You were over-the-top, and are behaving in a very juvenile and offensive way. I think you should apologize.


Next time bring your "A-game," Nehor.


Correction: You put up the offending post and harp on it every chance you get.

While I can't prove it I suspect you have not to this point mentioned Bill Hamblin since then without bringing this up.

No, but there most likely was a string of profanity in your PM to Ray.

I don't worry about my game, Scratchie ol'boy.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Post by _Mister Scratch »

The Nehor wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:
The Nehor wrote:You are clearly very angry and you allowed your white-hot wrath to bubble over in a very pathetic way. I mean, why go on the extended diatribe at all?


I didn't. I put up the offending post, and expressed my disapproval of it.

What was the usefulness of that? Why was it necessary for you to repeatedly use Bill "Anti-Semite" Hamblin?


Where've I done that, Nehor? I'm going to have to CFR you again, since you are obviously flailing about in desperation at this point.

Could you have gotten your basic point across without it? Yes, of course you could have. But you didn't. Instead, you let your anger get the better of you, and you went ballistic.


But.... I didn't 'go ballistic.' I merely posted the diatribe and commented on it. Certainly, there wasn't a long string of offensive epithets in my post!

You were over-the-top, and are behaving in a very juvenile and offensive way. I think you should apologize.


Next time bring your "A-game," Nehor.


Correction: You put up the offending post and harp on it every chance you get.

While I can't prove it I suspect you have not to this point mentioned Bill Hamblin since then without bringing this up.


Uh huh. It is all fine and dandy, Nehor, for you to sling accusations which you cannot prove. Good show, old chap!

No, but there most likely was a string of profanity in your PM to Ray.


Am I surprised that you would say this after I have just checkmated you? No, not really.
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

Mister Scratch wrote:I know you regard me with contempt

Sadly, that's true.

Mister Scratch wrote:I always have enjoyed sparring with you on these boards. It is great fun, and you are a worthy opponent.

I cannot honestly return the compliment, and, in any event, don't believe it to be sincere.

Nonetheless, I hope that your off-line life is very different from your life on line, and that you have a good Christmas.
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Post by _Mister Scratch »

Daniel Peterson wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:I know you regard me with contempt

Sadly, that's true.

Mister Scratch wrote:I always have enjoyed sparring with you on these boards. It is great fun, and you are a worthy opponent.

I cannot honestly return the compliment, and, in any event, don't believe it to be sincere.


Yes, I know you have never ever given me the benefit of the doubt: as I said, If a man steps on your neck for long enough, eventually you will quit asking him politely to remove it. I can assure you that I was sincere. I don't regard you with contempt, although I sure do disapprove of some of the things you have done and said.

Nonetheless, I hope that your off-line life is very different from your life on line,


I could say the same thing to you, of course. But then, I am aware of some of your off-line work, such as what appears in FROB.... I certainly don't contribute to or publish material such as that in my off-line life.

and that you have a good Christmas.


Same to you. And, if you ever summon up the nerve, I would still like for you to address my points vis-a-vis LDS academic embarrassment.
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

I doubt that you expect me to say that I admire the sentiment.

However, I'm not interested in demonizing Ray, nor in attempting amateur psychoanalysis. (I'm also not interested in pretending that I have any ability to diagnose Josh Skains, or to pronounce psychotherapeutic judgment on him.)

Further, I don't think that a few posts on a message board provide enough basis for a judgment against someone's "general ethics." This sort of slash-and-burn total-war personal polemic holds no interest for me whatever. I leave such things to the likes of Scratch, who plainly enjoys demonizing people.

I might add that I suspect that I'm the only person here who has actually met Ray Agostini (and his daughter) and been in his home. We've been in contact with each other, off and on, for years. I like Ray. A lot. We disagree on some things, religiously speaking. But I respect his integrity, and I believe him to be honest to the point, sometimes, of causing discomfort. (Which is not, in my view, necessarily a fault.)


You are quite generous. Would you be this generous if Ray were still antagonistic towards the church and apologia, and still proclaiming such threats?

Or would he be featured in one of your writings about ridiculous, and perhaps even threatening, anti-mormons?

As a matter of fact, your currently professed stance of avoiding “slash and burn” polemics as well as disdaining demonizing people seems a bit contradictory to some of your earlier words:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 943&st=140

On this thread, you shared some posts from RFM that horrified you:

I'm perfectly delighted with my life---I'm not delighted with allowing a KKK-NAZI organization who calls my church of the devil...
Date: Mar 27 11:45
Author: LongGone2
Mail Address:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
to get away with their incessant lies. It's an organization that destroys families, enslaves women, steals money from people least able to afford it, hides sexual deviants while blaming the victims, has turned a US State into a closed-minded theocracy, pushes teen gays into suicide or into marriages thereby destroying even more innocent lives, brought the debasing evil of polygamy to the United States, swore allegiance against MY country, has thought police at a so-called institute of higher learning, lies about itself and others constantly and spends a small fortune sending it's personal professors out to destroy the faith of everyone they meet. And they do all this with tax free dollars which is stealing from me!
Tell you what. Call your brownshirters home, give families back their dignity and money and allow them to live without a bishop asking them what they do in their own marriage bed, stop holding those star chamber jokes called courts of love, come clean with the cult's history of pedophilia, raping, lying, theiving, murdering founders, fire the likes of filth like Boyd Packer and Scott and that Peterson guy...then maybe no one would call the cult what it is: a filthy debachee of a lying carbuncle on the ass of humanity.
Now, would you like me to tell you how a really feel?


Subject: If you could go back in time, would you murder Ol' Horny Joe?
Date: Mar 26 22:34
Author: Anon for this one
Mail Address:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I sure would. He is one of the worst men in the history of mankind. He's destroyed countless lives.


Why, my goodness! He said he would KILL Joseph Smith!!! Why talking about hypothetically killing a historical figure is far, far, far worse than threatening to kill live missionaries…

Isn’t it?

Here’s what you had to say about these posts at that time:

Were you ever puzzled by the behavior of the anti-Mormon mobs in the nineteenth century?

People repeatedly ask me why I find the bizarrely-titled "Recovery" board so interesting, and I always respond that I'm intrigued by the phenomenon of extreme, over-the-top hatred and religious bigotry. (I also read extensively about Islamic extremism and, to a somewhat lesser degree, about the rise of anti-Semitism in pre-World War Two Germany.) They often seem to be unconvinced by my answer. But I do find it fascinating that at least some apostates and anti-Mormons are capable of such sentiments as those expressed above.


I wonder why you don’t find it “fascinating” that Ray was capable of even worse sentiments? I wonder why you take the sentiments expressed on RFM so seriously and yet are so generous towards Ray’s far worse statement?

Anyway, this created an interesting discussion on MAD, in which Ray darkly made this prediction:

I expressed an opinion many "moons" ago on the old FAIRboard, that these negative sentiments could materialise in actual physical violence. I still believe that. I think Dan has put this in very tactful and balanced language, but I would prefer to speak my mind in more forceful language. We cannot always separate expression from actual intent. If the quotes from the OP, which are symptomatic of much of RFM, are any indication, then I am seriously concerned. Tonight I watched two teenaged girls bash up an older man because of a stupid comment he made. When they were finished ten minutes later, he was a mass of blood. These girls were no more than sixteen or seventeen, and with some quick and dismissive wit they could have left the man looking like a fool, but the vindictiveness of the physical attack shocked me. They were only words uttered by a silly old drunk man at the train station, yet it nearly cost his life. Fortunately the police arrived and arrested them. I hope they spend at least 12 months in a juvenile detention centre.

If some dork speaks about "killing Mormon missionaries", I do not care a fig if anyone else sees this as merely words. I take this very seriously. And to all the little minds who think this thread has no substance - THINK AGAIN! And to all of you who quote Jesus, remember that out of the mouth come blasphemies, threats, and bile, which reflect the intentions of the heart. This is a verbal hatred that could one day turn to physical violence. And the more you speak and publish your BILE, the more the sick minds will be encouraged.

And let me have a word with those who encourage this, either by Pilate-like silence, or "free speech", you will have blood on your hands if anyone is physically injured. I abhor and detest the sick sentiments expressed against Dan Peterson, Juliann, or Mormons in general. You have a choice. Speak up, and stop the trashing, or clap your hands in glee.

The point Dan has been trying to make in this thread is that evil bears the face of innocence. Mass murderers can be ordinary "family" men and women who smell flowers and pat their dog, and buy candy for their children. It is the "mass movements" of hate which encourage them to act beyond civility, and beyond their "natural affections".

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.


I bolded the words that now leave me almost speechless, given the sight of Ray’s utter hypocrisy, and, frankly, incredible nerve.

So, Daniel, did you chastise Ray to avoid the “slash and burn” polemics, and to not demonize people? Hmmm, I wonder, I wonder…
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
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

Beastie, I'm sorry to have to tell you that I'm not going to publicly condemn Ray or anybody else merely because you request it.

I haven't paid any attention to this issue of yours. I don't know much about it, and I'm not particularly interested. I know Ray. I've been in his home. I've met his daughter. I feel quite comfortable with him.

If you're really fascinated with the matter, you deal with it. And if you really, really want to drag me into your personal spats, you deal with the inevitable disappointment.

I hope you have a pleasant Winter Solstice.
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Post by _Mister Scratch »

Daniel Peterson wrote:Beastie, I'm sorry to have to tell you that I'm not going to publicly condemn Ray or anybody else merely because you request it.

I haven't paid any attention to this issue of yours. I don't know much about it, and I'm not particularly interested. I know Ray. I've been in his home. I've met his daughter. I feel quite comfortable with him.

If you're really fascinated with the matter, you deal with it. And if you really, really want to drag me into your personal spats, you deal with the inevitable disappointment.

I hope you have a pleasant Winter Solstice.


Well then, how about addressing the issue of LDS academic embarrassment?
_Ray A

Post by _Ray A »

beastie wrote:I bolded the words that now leave me almost speechless, given the sight of Ray’s utter hypocrisy, and, frankly, incredible nerve.


I had no problem admitting I was a complete dork, a fool. Right here on MDB. But you see, I was in an apostate frame of mind then, and angry (like what you are now), which gave me some realisations. You still ignore the fact that at the time I wrote that, the missionaries were often visiting me, and I was occasionally attending Church.

No, you haven't, to your credit, gone so low, but your continuing negative obsession with Mormonism, and proving it a fraud, now dominates your Internet life. You know, as well as I do, that if you were pro-Mormon, you would raise none of this, because you'd recognise people can change, which you don't. I think it sad that you have to go back five years. Of course, which "side" you are on does matter here. I think Dan would be against me if I was anti-Mormon, but I'm not, and I think you would be against me if I'm pro-Mormon, which you are. So remember, you are just as hypocritical, because Mercury has said very much the same, and all you can say about similar threats on RFM (which have occurred) is very lame. Why this silence about angry apostates? You don't even care to fish out this stuff because it would implicate your fellow ex-Mormons.

No, I don't deny that bias occurs, and nor should you. You are as biased as you claim Dan and I are. Scratch's blatant lying doesn't even concern you. I wonder why?
Post Reply