Ray A: The Gandhi of Internet Mormonism?

[_beastie]

Ok, so tell me this: which Ray should we listen to? The one who tells us that his threats meant nothing and no one took them seriously, or the one who tells us that we should take very seriously the words of a dork who threatens to kill missionaries?

[_Ray A]

I know you're trying to show that I'm a hypocrite like you, but this isn't working. Nothing I said indicated that Mormons have no feelings, they don't suffer, only exmos hurt at all. So why are you pretending it does? Oh, let me guess. Because you're trying to divert the attention from the fact that while proclaiming that folks should take dorks who threaten to kill missionaries very seriously (insert predictions of holocaust here), while omitting the pertinent information that you had once been such a dork, and now insist that your words should NOT be taken seriously.

Let me clarify one thing here, as my time is getting shorter. I still stand by my assertion that there could be unprecedented violence against Mormons in the future, just as there has been against Jews, and who predicted the Jewish Holocaust? Who even thought it possible? Jews were considered respectable German citizens, and Germany a safe haven for them, which is why they settled there, until the rise of Hitler. I sincerely HOPE I'm wrong, but it happened in the past, and it almost always came from former members who incited the violence by demonising Joseph Smith and Mormons. If it makes me a hypocrite in your eyes for saying that, tough. Many apostates who threatened Joseph Smith, or for a time betrayed him, returned to the Church, and became his strongest defenders. I might even have been a David Whitmer-like Jackass for a time, but nothing is going to change my view of Mormonism now. No, not even your inane rantings about some event five years ago.

In that sense, I am more than happy to stand as a hypocrite.

[_beastie]

That's interesting, but you didn't answer my question.

[_Ray A]

That's interesting, but you didn't answer my question.

Dan already answered it, but you obviously missed it. Go back and read.

[_beastie]

I don't want Dan's answer. I want yours.

[_Ray A]

Ok, so tell me this: which Ray should we listen to? The one who tells us that his threats meant nothing and no one took them seriously, or the one who tells us that we should take very seriously the words of a dork who threatens to kill missionaries?

Who said I care if you listen to me? I'll let others judge whether they want to listen, and at this venue I believe most won't. Why should you do their thinking, and judging? Or Scratch. You're very filled with self-importance. I don't need to clarify any further what I've said, and what I meant. I'll let my words in the two previous posts stand, and I don't care what you make of it.

[_beastie]

I know the reason you won't answer.

[_Ray A]

I know the reason you won't answer.

You're a very incapable reader. I never said no ever took my threat seriously ("PING". Does that finally register?). But your of-late Scratch-like reading is seriously off-target, and that's why I really don't care what you think. As I said before, you would, if you could, want the last word with an echo.

[_beastie]

You're a very incapable reader. I never said no ever took my threat seriously ("PING". Does that finally register?). But your of-late Scratch-like reading is seriously off-target, and that's why I really don't care what you think. As I said before, you would, if you could, want the last word with an echo.

I didn't ask if anyone took your threat seriously. I would assume they did, particularly since it was not a singular threat.

But what I asked was if we should have taken your threat seriously.

I guess I will have to spell it out for you. You tell us now, and Dan assures us likewise, that you were never really threatening anyone, that this, apparently, was some sort of temper tantrum, or perhaps you were under Satan's control. Who knows. But you never really were a threat.

But somehow you now ask us all to believe that those who engage in polemics, I suppose mainly on RFM - much milder polemics than threatening to kill missionaries, no matter what you pretend - should be taken seriously, because, apparently, although you were not capable of following through on your threats, they are capable of following through with violence.

In your case, we're supposed to believe that you were just acting out in a fit of temper. We're supposed to forget about it - it was five years ago. But, for those on RFM, it's a different story. They aren't just acting out in a fit of temper. No, they are either capable of real acts of violence or encouraging those acts.

There's no need to answer. There's nothing you can say - except, of course, call me a name or something, or tell me I should eat dinner with scratch.

[_Daniel Peterson]

But somehow you now ask us all to believe that those who engage in polemics, I suppose mainly on RFM - much milder polemics than threatening to kill missionaries, no matter what you pretend - should be taken seriously, because, apparently, although you were not capable of following through on your threats, they are capable of following through with violence.

In your case, we're supposed to believe that you were just acting out in a fit of temper. We're supposed to forget about it - it was five years ago. But, for those on RFM, it's a different story. They aren't just acting out in a fit of temper. No, they are either capable of real acts of violence or encouraging those acts.

Ray can, of course, answer for himself.

But, just for clarity's sake, I want to point out that it would be a serious distortion of my stated view if the paragraphs above were to be taken as representing my opinion on the matter.