Ray A: A Mormon 'John'?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Post by _Gadianton »

Nehor wrote:I don't think Ray loves prostitution. That whole 'love the sin and not the sinner' thing might come into play here. Can one love the Book of Mormon and prostitutes. If you assume that God inspired the authorship of the Book of Mormon then you can check yes next to the two greatest commandments according to the Messiah.


Nehor, I understand your point, and perhaps I'm reading too much into Ray's comments. Let me ask you this. I've asked Ray a couple of blunt questions, if he cares to answer them. It's his private business and I don't expect an answer, though he is pretty 'honest' about his life. Here, while he's maintained that his relationship with the girl was a sincere personal one, he's also implied by using the term "sex workers" (hey Ray, don't attack me for being PC) that he doesn't see anything in principle wrong with what they do. Also, and I don't want to make Moniker mad at me (heh) but it does seem to me that men who date prostitutes have some familiarity with the industry. If it turns out, by an admission from Ray, that he has employed the services of these providers and holds it to be a respectable industry, then would you admit that it's a little weird for him to defend the Book of Mormon until the day he dies, knowing it teaches moral principles very contrary to his own? I mean, those who insist on respecting the trade, like Moniker (and myself I might add) usually can't stand the sanctimonious victorianism and patriarchal overtones in the denouncement of "whoredoms" and the patronizing "delighting in purity and chastity" of women (which usually means they're jealous someone other than them is out and about "deflowering" their turf). Ray seems to me to be sort your average liberal, man of the world who like myself, would have little use for the goody-two-shoes calls to "righteousness" and purity that are found in books like the Book of Mormon. To love it and "defend" it til death just seems very out of place.

So, if Ray's answers are in line with my speculation, do you see the problem? (I know you're going to just say, "No." hah)
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Post by _Gadianton »

I didn't see that Ray condoned prostitution per se. He does apparently condone fornication, though -- and I've been informed that was a sin to my utter amazement. :O I didn't see that Ray said he was a client of a prostitute. Many women that work in the sex industry have lovers, husbands, boyfriends, or flings that are not clients. Ya see Gad, these women do have lives outside their professions. ;)


lol, oh I believe it. Maybe it's just I do feel I kind of know Ray, well, anyway, let's just see if he has a continued interest in the thread and responds further.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Gadianton wrote:
Nehor wrote:I don't think Ray loves prostitution. That whole 'love the sin and not the sinner' thing might come into play here. Can one love the Book of Mormon and prostitutes. If you assume that God inspired the authorship of the Book of Mormon then you can check yes next to the two greatest commandments according to the Messiah.


Nehor, I understand your point, and perhaps I'm reading too much into Ray's comments. Let me ask you this. I've asked Ray a couple of blunt questions, if he cares to answer them. It's his private business and I don't expect an answer, though he is pretty 'honest' about his life. Here, while he's maintained that his relationship with the girl was a sincere personal one, he's also implied by using the term "sex workers" (hey Ray, don't attack me for being PC) that he doesn't see anything in principle wrong with what they do. Also, and I don't want to make Moniker mad at me (heh) but it does seem to me that men who date prostitutes have some familiarity with the industry. If it turns out, by an admission from Ray, that he has employed the services of these providers and holds it to be a respectable industry, then would you admit that it's a little weird for him to defend the Book of Mormon until the day he dies, knowing it teaches moral principles very contrary to his own? I mean, those who insist on respecting the trade, like Moniker (and myself I might add) usually can't stand the sanctimonious victorianism and patriarchal overtones in the denouncement of "whoredoms" and the patronizing "delighting in purity and chastity" of women (which usually means they're jealous someone other than them is out and about "deflowering" their turf). Ray seems to me to be sort your average liberal, man of the world who like myself, would have little use for the goody-two-shoes calls to "righteousness" and purity that are found in books like the Book of Mormon. To love it and "defend" it til death just seems very out of place.

So, if Ray's answers are in line with my speculation, do you see the problem? (I know you're going to just say, "No." hah)


Gad....Gad....so what you're saying is that it's not permissible to work out one's world view on a message board without someone digging up what you stated 4 years ago and using it for shock value? Am I wrong about what you're forwarding?
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Somebody stop me. The quoted portions of Ray's comments that were used in the OP were reflective in nature. And this is being used to disparage him as a hypocrite? How so? Are only extreme black and white positions deemed valid? Two the party line entirely or become a rabid critic of the church?

What the hell?
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Post by _Gadianton »

Ray is most certainly free to "work out his worldview" on a message board. What he said four years ago only has relevance to his current beliefs if he still believes them I suppose, and that's kind of where I think the thread is heading. Whether his past posts should be dug into and brought to light, well, I suppose that depends, in this case I don't see the problem. I mean, it's stuff he said frankly on a subject he himself brought up, with no signs up being upset, unstable or angry. Four years might seem like a long time, but if you consider people talk about the beliefs or actions of other people who wrote books 10, 20, or 50 years ago as if it's still relevant in some way, then that kind of puts it into perspective.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Post by _Mister Scratch »

Jersey Girl wrote:Somebody stop me. The quoted portions of Ray's comments that were used in the OP were reflective in nature. And this is being used to disparage him as a hypocrite? How so? Are only extreme black and white positions deemed valid?


In the LDS Church? Yes. Mormonism is an absolutist religion. As BKP said, "In the Church we are not neutral. We are one-sided. There is a war going on, and we are engaged in it." (From "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater than the Intellect")
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Mister Scratch wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:Somebody stop me. The quoted portions of Ray's comments that were used in the OP were reflective in nature. And this is being used to disparage him as a hypocrite? How so? Are only extreme black and white positions deemed valid?


In the LDS Church? Yes. Mormonism is an absolutist religion. As BKP said, "In the Church we are not neutral. We are one-sided. There is a war going on, and we are engaged in it." (From "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater than the Intellect")


I see. So you deny Ray the right to think for himself. How could I have missed that?
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Post by _Mister Scratch »

Gadianton wrote:Ray is most certainly free to "work out his worldview" on a message board. What he said four years ago only has relevance to his current beliefs if he still believes them I suppose, and that's kind of where I think the thread is heading. Whether his past posts should be dug into and brought to light, well, I suppose that depends, in this case I don't see the problem. I mean, it's stuff he said frankly on a subject he himself brought up, with no signs up being upset, unstable or angry. Four years might seem like a long time, but if you consider people talk about the beliefs or actions of other people who wrote books 10, 20, or 50 years ago as if it's still relevant in some way, then that kind of puts it into perspective.


Yes, I agree, and would like to add that if anyone is interested in "digging up" stuff I've written in the past, then I say, By all means, go right ahead. I stand by everything I have written, and will admit forthrightly that not everything has been exactly "praiseworthy." But go ahead and dig it up if you'd like. Moreover, there have been several "personal attack" threads devoted to yours truly, penned by rcrocket, Coggins, and Wade Englund, as I recall (there may be others I am forgetting). Quite a few of them were written by Coggins, and indeed, he seems to find a way to insert some mention of me into every single one of his posts.

As an addendum: I am curious whether Jersey Girl and Moniker find phrases such as "Lady of the Night" and "fallen woman" to be as offensive (or more or less so) as "licked cupcake" and "walking pornography", and whether there is any real difference between such terminology and where it comes from.....
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Mister Scratch wrote:
Gadianton wrote:Ray is most certainly free to "work out his worldview" on a message board. What he said four years ago only has relevance to his current beliefs if he still believes them I suppose, and that's kind of where I think the thread is heading. Whether his past posts should be dug into and brought to light, well, I suppose that depends, in this case I don't see the problem. I mean, it's stuff he said frankly on a subject he himself brought up, with no signs up being upset, unstable or angry. Four years might seem like a long time, but if you consider people talk about the beliefs or actions of other people who wrote books 10, 20, or 50 years ago as if it's still relevant in some way, then that kind of puts it into perspective.


Yes, I agree, and would like to add that if anyone is interested in "digging up" stuff I've written in the past, then I say, By all means, go right ahead. I stand by everything I have written, and will admit forthrightly that not everything has been exactly "praiseworthy." But go ahead and dig it up if you'd like. Moreover, there have been several "personal attack" threads devoted to yours truly, penned by rcrocket, Coggins, and Wade Englund, as I recall (there may be others I am forgetting). Quite a few of them were written by Coggins, and indeed, he seems to find a way to insert some mention of me into every single one of his posts.

As an addendum: I am curious whether Jersey Girl and Moniker find phrases such as "Lady of the Night" and "fallen woman" to be as offensive (or more or less so) as "licked cupcake" and "walking pornography", and whether there is any real difference between such terminology and where it comes from.....


Aren't both coming from LDS affiliates?
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Post by _Mister Scratch »

Jersey Girl wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:Somebody stop me. The quoted portions of Ray's comments that were used in the OP were reflective in nature. And this is being used to disparage him as a hypocrite? How so? Are only extreme black and white positions deemed valid?


In the LDS Church? Yes. Mormonism is an absolutist religion. As BKP said, "In the Church we are not neutral. We are one-sided. There is a war going on, and we are engaged in it." (From "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater than the Intellect")


I see. So you deny Ray the right to think for himself. How could I have missed that?


No... Ray can think whatever he pleases. Likewise, I can criticize whatever I please. In this case, I find his "straddling the fence" to by hypocritical, especially in light of the fact that he is defending such an absolutist institution as the LDS Church, hence my critique of such.
Post Reply