The Many Faces of Ray A

[_Ray A]

So you say about DCP, but we all know that in private your nose is up the anus of those who will validate about you what you cannot about yourself, and the rest of us who don't want to take your crap, we're all heathens doomed for outer darkness. LOL!

Lead the battle cry, girl. Onward Christian anti-Mormons!

[_Coggins7]

"Scratch", in spite of how your fawning, sycophant dills here obeserve your every word like sardines taking to worm bait, you must hear the truth. You are an embittered soul with devious ideas about where "Mormonism should go". In a way, Scratchie old boy, I think you're actually doing Mormonism a service. When intelligent people read your posts they, surely, have to wonder if they would ever want to join hands with a bitter old fart like you.

Standing O...

[_Coggins7]

LOL! Um, I long since gave up on trying to convince the LDS church that their doctrines are racist. I just came back to this forum after a several week break, and if I do recall, you were on here under another screen name telling me that I was recovering from mental issues during my last break, due to legitimate health issues. Dealing with the racist undertones of LDS doctrine causes me too much pain. I observe that it's wrong, but if a black person wants to be LDS, that's their dichotomy. I now associate with those who love and accept me for who I am, and I believe God does the same. But if you like, I can stroke your ego and tell you something blatantly false about your "positive" character so you can be my friend....whadaya say?

The doctrines of the LDS church are not racist, but GIMR very certainly is, and like most black racists of the modern era, she thinly veils her racism with a patina of anti-racism, just as the old Klansmen used to wrap themselves in the folds of Christianity and patriotism. GIMR is so obsessed with her own blackness and the differences between this and the whiteness of others around her that she's spent the lion's share of her posting history here writing of little else. Like others here, she has used much bandwidth in personal psychohistory, a great deal of which has to do with alleged racial dust ups during her time in the Church, in which her utter moral and cognitive superiority to the benighted Crackers in her ward became just too much to bear.

Of all those here who lack credibility as critics, GIMR follows PP, Merc, Harmony, and a plethora of others into the great ashcan of anti-Mormon Internet history.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

The same goes for the poster known as "Rollo Tomasi". You have attacked Dan Peterson's character ad nauseam, yet you cowardly hide behind your infamous anonymity like a back-stabbing Judas.

I simply used DCP's own words to point out his rumor-mongering about Quinn. How is that an "attack"?

[_Yoda]

The doctrines of the LDS church are not racist, but GIMR very certainly is, and like most black racists of the modern era, she thinly veils her racism with a patina of anti-racism, just as the old Klansmen used to wrap themselves in the folds of Christianity and patriotism. GIMR is so obsessed with her own blackness and the differences between this and the whiteness of others around her that she's spent the lion's share of her posting history here writing of little else. Like others here, she has used much bandwidth in personal psychohistory, a great deal of which has to do with alleged racial dust ups during her time in the Church, in which her utter moral and cognitive superiority to the benighted Crackers in her ward became just too much to bear.

Of all those here who lack credibility as critics, GIMR follows PP, Merc, Harmony, and a plethora of others into the great ashcan of anti-Mormon Internet history.

Coggins, I have to take issue with your assessment of GIMR. GIMR and I have become close over the last several months, and I can assure you that she is NOT racist, far from it, and to compare her with the KKK is completely absurd.

GIMR is a very bright young lady who has been through struggles in her life that she has been able to overcome. Unfortunately, she was the victim of racist and abusive treatment from Church members. The reason this was devastating to her is because she thought that the Church, and the embodiment of its' members was a place that she could feel safe. When this trust was misplaced, she did develop a resentment toward the Church, and frankly, I really can't blame her.

She has overcome the bitterness she initially felt, and although she is no longer a member of the Church, she has a personal relationship with Christ that she is comfortable with, is moving in the right direction with her education and her career, and I applaud her for that.

I don't understand, Coggins, how you can place these kinds of blanket judgments and labels on people when you, yourself, are multi-faceted, and have gone through and overcome many struggles yourself. I respect you for your ability to overcome your weaknesses and turn them into strengths, and I have repeatedly backed you when others have thrown personal attacks regarding your prior struggles with drinking into the mix of conversation here.

Not everyone who has criticisms of the Church fits into a neatly designed box. At the base of it, we're all people here. And we can all learn from each other.

[_Mister Scratch]

So it is true there was no "new information" for me, but does a person need "new information" to have a change? What I had was a realisation, a realisation that my approach to the Church was wrong. I could see in myself all of the petty quibbling that I so often see here, and worked to eradicate it. If I am a "turncoat" that's not always such a bad thing. If you're a reformed smoker you can be viewed either as hypocritical or helpful for warning others of the dangers of smoking.

I find it absolutely fascinating, Ray, that you would compare involvement with the LDS Church to smoking cigarettes....

I haven't criticised Kevin for his turncoat activity, because if that's where he has to be, so be it.

Ah, trying to back out now, eh? Would you care to look back Ray, at your prior posts, where you demand that Kevin be attacked, too? You are flip-flopping left and right! Come now, if I tell you nice things, will you settle down? If I stroke your ego, and tell you what a good writer and thinker you are, will you be a good boy?

I was in a similar situation, and who is to say Kevin won't change and mellow in years to come? Not necessarily change his ideas, but his approach.

I've told you this before, Scratch, but you're not listening. Every time you kick Mormonism, you kick it upstairs. Not the direction you want it to go

What "direction" do you think I want it to go? If you mean that I'd like to see the Mopologists held accountable for the bad things they've done, then you're absolutely right.

[_Mister Scratch]

What you think about me or my motives is not important. I know my reasons. Being nice to someone is important, but I would not change my views or approach merely because someone was nice. Some exmos have been very nice to me, and I have an exmo friend who posted on RFM and we still exchange emails frequently, and he plans to visit in the near future. On Exmo-Social one of my favourite posters, and friend, John Hamer, has not in any way altered my views of "exmoism". I never attacked John because he had too much integrity for me to do that, though we have very different opinions, on the Book of Mormon, and Mormonism in general. So "being nice" is not the crux.

Fair enough. But, for you, it clearly appears to be the deciding factor, especially if one of the Heavy Hitters---such as DCP---is involved. I wonder if anyone would care to place bets on whether or not you'd flip again if, say, Steve Benson began complimenting you, stroking your ego, etc.... You have no integrity, Ray. You've thrown it away for a warm, fuzzy feeling.

You on the other hand have to be one of the nastiest mud-slingers I've met on the net. You are into vilification and character assassination more than any one I know, even outside the Internet.

No, I'm not, Ray. I am into making sure that Mopologists are held accountable for their wrongdoings. It is not "mudslinging" to report the things which they say themselves.

[_Sam Harris]

The doctrines of the LDS church are not racist, but GIMR very certainly is, and like most black racists of the modern era, she thinly veils her racism with a patina of anti-racism, just as the old Klansmen used to wrap themselves in the folds of Christianity and patriotism. GIMR is so obsessed with her own blackness and the differences between this and the whiteness of others around her that she's spent the lion's share of her posting history here writing of little else. Like others here, she has used much bandwidth in personal psychohistory, a great deal of which has to do with alleged racial dust ups during her time in the Church, in which her utter moral and cognitive superiority to the benighted Crackers in her ward became just too much to bear.

Of all those here who lack credibility as critics, GIMR follows PP, Merc, Harmony, and a plethora of others into the great ashcan of anti-Mormon Internet history.

Coggins, I have to take issue with your assessment of GIMR. GIMR and I have become close over the last several months, and I can assure you that she is NOT racist, far from it, and to compare her with the KKK is completely absurd.

GIMR is a very bright young lady who has been through struggles in her life that she has been able to overcome. Unfortunately, she was the victim of racist and abusive treatment from Church members. The reason this was devastating to her is because she thought that the Church, and the embodiment of its' members was a place that she could feel safe. When this trust was misplaced, she did develop a resentment toward the Church, and frankly, I really can't blame her.

She has overcome the bitterness she initially felt, and although she is no longer a member of the Church, she has a personal relationship with Christ that she is comfortable with, is moving in the right direction with her education and her career, and I applaud her for that.

I don't understand, Coggins, how you can place these kinds of blanket judgments and labels on people when you, yourself, are multi-faceted, and have gone through and overcome many struggles yourself. I respect you for your ability to overcome your weaknesses and turn them into strengths, and I have repeatedly backed you when others have thrown personal attacks regarding your prior struggles with drinking into the mix of conversation here.

Not everyone who has criticisms of the Church fits into a neatly designed box. At the base of it, we're all people here. And we can all learn from each other.

This type of support means a great deal coming from you, Liz. If Coggins were to see me in real life, he'd probably have some sort of breakdown, because I just don't fit into his neat little box. He's really not worth replying to, because truthfulness is apparently a character trait he doesn't hold in high esteem.

It would be impossible to be a racist anti-mormon and still have LDS friends who are not black, including male friends who, for the sake of their feeling like they can contribute to my life, I ask to bless me when sick. If I hated the church that much, I wouldn't allow the LDS around me to participate at all in my spiritual life.

Cog, like Ray, would benefit much from counseling. But we know that it's too easy to sit and put Klan hoods on black people, rather than admit one's own problems in front of a psychiatrist.

[_Ray A]

I find it absolutely fascinating, Ray, that you would compare involvement with the LDS Church to smoking cigarettes....

I did not make that comparison, but this is to be expected of you.

Ah, trying to back out now, eh? Would you care to look back Ray, at your prior posts, where you demand that Kevin be attacked, too? You are flip-flopping left and right!

Let Kevin comment if he cares to. The last discussion I had directly with Kevin was on his board, not here. I even apologised for misunderstanding him on one issue. During posts on his board I simply asked him to state where he was, what he believed, and where he wanted to go. I was asking him to be upfront. Maybe you should go back and check that last dialogue, because that was the last direct lengthy encounter we had, which was months ago.

Come now, if I tell you nice things, will you settle down?

You are not capable of saying nice things, and you're the real flip flopper. You call DCP the "Good Professor", then stab him in the back. You've tried to say complimentary things about him to offset your nasty criticisms, then ten seconds later you're saying things like he's an unprincipled, devious liar and a dishonest person. You're the one with the flip flopping schizophrenia, Scratch.

If I stroke your ego, and tell you what a good writer and thinker you are, will you be a good boy?

Stroke it all you want, but I'll know it's all fake, because you are fake.

What "direction" do you think I want it to go? If you mean that I'd like to see the Mopologists held accountable for the bad things they've done, then you're absolutely right.

I think you lost belief in Mormonism a long time ago. I think you want the Church to become like the Community of Christ.

[_Ray A]

Fair enough. But, for you, it clearly appears to be the deciding factor, especially if one of the Heavy Hitters---such as DCP---is involved. I wonder if anyone would care to place bets on whether or not you'd flip again if, say, Steve Benson began complimenting you, stroking your ego, etc.... You have no integrity, Ray. You've thrown it away for a warm, fuzzy feeling.

I've already given examples of why this is not so, but nothing changes your twisted interpretations.

No, I'm not, Ray. I am into making sure that Mopologists are held accountable for their wrongdoings. It is not "mudslinging" to report the things which they say themselves.

You are twisting what they say just like you twist what I say. I know DCP and do not take his words out of context like you do. In spite of constant clarifications, from his own mouth, backed up by his email to Dr. Shades, you continue to spout ridiculous conspiracy theories like DCP masterminding the downfall of Quinn. This is completely and utterly ridiculous, and despite clear and contrary clarifications from him you and Rollo continue to base your conclusions on your innuendo and speculative vilification. This is why, at one stage, he had flirted with the idea of legal proceedings, because you and Rollo are his chief and false accusers, and this wrong accusation stinks in the eyes of fair-minded people.