Ray A.....total nut.

[_Coggins7]

All of my essays were based on accepting certain apologetic claims which are actually quite open to scrutiny, such as the existence of the "others", and the idea that one cannot differentiate a religious group if they have culturally assimilated into the larger group. I don't necessarily accept either of those premises, but since apologists insist upon them, I wrote my essays with those in mind.

The only problem is, Beastie, that your particular analysis and spin on the evidence is not at all conclusive and doesn't in any conclusive manner do what you intend it to do--deligitimize the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

I understand that you believe this to be the case, and I understand that you wish this to be the case, but others, including others at places like FARMS who are actually much more conversant with the data and evidence you are attempting to handle, do not accept your conclusions and analysis.

And that cuts to the proverbial chase.

[_beastie]

So are you changing your tune now? You originally identified the "chase" as being my not reading what believers say. Now your new "chase" is just that I haven't convinced you.

Yawn.

[_Ray A]

The reason I so rarely read or respond to your posts is because you are so often so wildly incorrect that it feels insane to even try to engage you. (see your recent assertion that I never really believed in the church.)

You always said you never received a witness that Joseph Smith was a prophet.

Did you believe in the Church? If so, how did you separate Joseph Smith from your "true belief" in the Church, assuming you really did believe in the Church.

How does one "truly believe" in the Church, while never having had a witness of the prophetic calling of its founder?

[_Chap]

Oh, the irony is thick.

I have made effort upon effort, time and time again, to engage in serious, idea based discussion but

but ... somehow none of your readers here seem to take you seriously, do they Coggins? Absolutely NONE.

Could there ... could there just be a reason for that?

I suppose that Satan is distracting them from your eirenic and salvific messages by blinding their sight to what they could gain by hearkening unto you. Never mind! When you are a god, then they will be really, really sorry!

[_Ray A]

That's because crocket, at least, has more brains than you.

No doubt. You've already informed me I was a bitch, as well. And you know, even if every accusation you've made against me were true, I've still never said anything as vicious as "YOUR MISSIONARIES ARE DEAD."

I hope crocket and coggins think long and hard about whose bed they are hopping into. I have very little respect for either of these characters, but they are certainly not in Ray's league.

You respect anything that isn't orthodox Mormon. Working you out is as easy as doing a crossword puzzle where the biggest word is "cat".

[_Gadianton]

little reading of the reams of work FARMS and other LDS scholars have produced over the years which engages your own perhaps not quite so water tight theories and speculations concerning the historicity of various Book of Mormon events or characters

You do realize that FARMS has failed to convince anyone but other FARMS members and a handful of LDS intellectuals that would believe anything FARMS writes so long as it sounds brainy and vindicates the church, right?

[_beastie]

You always said you never received a witness that Joseph Smith was a prophet.

Did you believe in the Church? If so, how did you separate Joseph Smith from your "true belief" in the Church, assuming you really did believe in the Church.

How does one "truly believe" in the Church, while never having had a witness of the prophetic calling of its founder?

I've explained that every time I've told my story. The missionaries convinced me that since God told me the Book of Mormon was "the word of God", then that automatically meant Joseph Smith was a true prophet. I'd also had other spiritual experiences in conjunction with the LDS church, so like the vast majority of LDS, I put all those experiences together, and concluded it meant the church was true. It was only many years later, when I began reading about some of Joseph Smith' behavior, that I began to wonder if that reasoning was sound, after all.

You and Coggins are in serious trouble if you're going to insist that one must receive a specific, extraordinary, numinous event about Joseph Smith' role to "really believe" in the church, because the vast majority of members haven't even received any such specific testimony about anything - if the Mormons I knew in each of my wards were representative of the church as a whole, and I see no reason to believe they weren't. When I was losing faith, I talked to many members about my problem and asked them about their testimonies of Joseph Smith. Not a single one could respond with a singular testimonial event. Instead, they told me about their general good, spiritual feelings which they interpreted to mean "the church is true".

[_beastie]

You respect anything that isn't orthodox Mormon. Working you out is as easy as doing a crossword puzzle where the biggest word is "cat".

Then "cat" has you stumped.

Let me spell it out for you. When I lose respect for a poster, it is due to their own behavior. I lost respect for bob for two reasons: one is that most of his posts were whining about anonymity, or correcting grammar and spelling. The second was his apparent misogygny.

I lost respect for coggins because he rants and raves with almost every post.

You, of course, I lost respect for when you hypocritically declared that the hateful rhetoric of a few RFMers was going to inspire real acts of violence against Mormons. Now that I know just what you are capable of - "YOUR MISSIONARIES ARE DEAD" - I lost that much more respect for you. So while Bob and Coggins each have their negative traits, I still don't believe either are capable of that sort of behavior. But if they want to get in bed with you, perhaps they are.

[_Ray A]

You respect anything that isn't orthodox Mormon. Working you out is as easy as doing a crossword puzzle where the biggest word is "cat".

Then "cat" has you stumped.

Let me spell it out for you. When I lose respect for a poster, it is due to their own behavior. I lost respect for bob for two reasons: one is that most of his posts were whining about anonymity, or correcting grammar and spelling. The second was his apparent misogygny.

I lost respect for coggins because he rants and raves with almost every post.

You, of course, I lost respect for when you hypocritically declared that the hateful rhetoric of a few RFMers was going to inspire real acts of violence against Mormons. Now that I know just what you are capable of - "YOUR MISSIONARIES ARE DEAD" - I lost that much more respect for you. So while Bob and Coggins each have their negative traits, I still don't believe either are capable of that sort of behavior. But if they want to get in bed with you, perhaps they are.

Beastie, your loss of respect for me is nothing but good news. Frankly, I'd be ashamed to have your respect, with all the anti-Mormon BS you write. Thank you for including me with Coogins and Bob. I would rather be in their company - anyday - than yours.

Good night.

[_beastie]

Beastie, your loss of respect for me is nothing but good news. Frankly, I'd be ashamed to have your respect, with all the anti-Mormon BS you write. Thank you for including me with Coogins and Bob. I would rather be in their company - anyday - than yours.

Perhaps you will also understand why the opinion of someone who actually thought it was a good idea to tell someone "YOUR MISSIONARIES ARE DEAD" is meaningless to me.

The question isn't whether you would welcome their company - you hardly have any standards by which you could justify rejecting them. The question, for me, is why they would welcome YOUR company.