Ray A: The Gandhi of Internet Mormonism?

[_Ray A]

And this is where the problem is, please try to understand what I'm saying here. DCP and others (yourself?) feel that uncovering the contents of the PM alone, devoid of any context will not just reveal who is "lying" but who is a "brazen liar". Do you see what I'm getting at?

Gad, you must also understand that I'm in the midst of a hectic working week, and don't have much time, but to address this particular point. I fully understand your point, however I don't consider you a brazen liar. I certainly do not agree with your emphasis, and lack on emphasis on many things, for example, I think you downplay the extent of exmo anger, here and elsewhere, however, that is your image, your bias (like mine), and I expect this to happen. However, if you altered an email or PM, then posted it as the real McCoy, I would just as surely try to correct (and condemn openly) you on that as I did Scratch, even if it meant posting PMs. You had the honesty to admit that what you did was "a bit unethical", but I still don't condemn you for this (have I?), because what you said was the truth, a truth I could not refute. Scratch's distortion of a PM is a brazen lie, and that's the big difference.

[_Ray A]

You're right. I don't consider Ray malicious, and I believe him to be honest.

Sorry that that irritates you.

It doesn't irritate me. It delights and amuses me. It's always entertaining to see hypocrisy exposed. That's why it sells so many newspapers when it happens to famous folks.

Maybe you should look at some of your own hypocrisy:

I'm not trying to change Mormonism or anyone, Ray. I gave that up long ago, and I never wanted to change Mormonism, I wanted to help Mormons see that good, decent, and honest people can lose faith in the LDS church for legitimate reasons. I gave up on that "mission", because it became apparent that anyone who was capable of understanding that had understood it long ago. Those who don't recognize it never will, no matter who talks to them about it, other than the prophet himself.

BUT - I actually believe that criticisms of exbelievers do eventually have an impact on the direction of the church. Now this next statement is an example of the type of statement that would cause a ruckus over on FAIR, and yet it is definitely reality-based. The LDS church is sensitive to how it markets itself. It does want to be seen as part of the larger society (hence the reduction in tension between the Mormon church and the larger society which, according to Mauss, results in a reduction in the number of apostates as he defines the term). It may take a great deal of time, and the church leaders would never admit that they considered the opinions of exbelievers in this evolution, but eventually I believe the church will react to these criticisms. (when it's something they can control) The part I'm uncertain about is what form that change will take. I tend to believe it will be liberalizing, as you desire, but there is a possibility they will become even more conservative. For example, in regards to the view of the Book of Mormon as a literal history - whether or not they will ever admit it, the leadership eventually recognizes the challenges facing interpreting the Book of Mormon as a literal ancient history, instead of as pseudographia. Once having recognized it, they have a choice to make. Will they go the way of the RLDS and while perhaps not openly sanctioning the pseudographic model, will ALLOW it to be expressed without problem, and eventually create a climate in which it's "ok" for believers to choose either interpretation? Or will they retrench and become even more demanding of viewing the Book of Mormon as literal ancient history? They're kind of between a rock and a hard place, because both choices have a cost (which is why I think the choice right now is to pretend the problem doesn't exist). The liberal route will enable the church to retain a certain number of members who would otherwise feel that they have no place in the LDS church, but yet it opens the door to the 'watering down' effect. When a church becomes more liberal, people feel freer to do things like marry someone of a different faith and go to THEIR church, or they feel freer to openly be selective in which "commandments" to follow. Then the church becomes less attractive to those who want clear answers and directions, and it really does become much more like mainstream religions - and their numbers tend to reduce. OR it can become more conservative, and become a global church with a membership largely relying on the children of believers following their parents' traditions, and attaining converts from the less educated with less access to information. Those members will be less able to financially support the church, as well, and less able to present an attractive front to marketing to the middle and uipper class. So this will also tend to reduce numbers.

I do disagree with you, however, on whether or not the LDS church could change this. They've changed other teachings that were just as fundamental, in the past. It may be hard to visualize what changes would have to take place for this to happen, but I don't think it is impossible.

You are not an ex-believer? You have no interest in changing Mormonism? You "gave up on that long ago"?

The "spotless" image you present isn't so spotless. Moreover, you're not very honest with yourself.

[_beastie]

Ray,

That's your best shot??? It's pathetic, man. Give it up.

Believing that it's possible the LDS church could change, and actively wanting it to change are two different things.

I do believe the LDS church could change in this regard (I know you don't). But I'm not invested in it enough, personally, to actively want that change, other than in an academic sense, and in knowing how this impacts people's lives.

Like I said, man, this is pathetic example. Surely I've given better demonstrations of hypocrisy than that - which isn't even hypocrisy, but creative reading on your part. If this is all you can find, boy, I'm a saint. (pun intended)

[_Mister Scratch]

Once again we see Ray in his full-blown, hypocritical, "holier-than-thou", Gandhi-of-Internet-Mormonism mode. I'm gonna have to ask again: Why haven't you sent that PM to Shades, Ray, you foul-mouthed Judas?

[_beastie]

The "spotless" image you present isn't so spotless. Moreover, you're not very honest with yourself.

LOL! I forgot to comment on this. I present a "spotless" image???!?!??!?! You really do hang in a rough neighborhood, don't you, if my image appears to be (at least attempted) "spotlessness". :O

My "image" may be many things, but "spotless" is not one that would occur to me.

[_Ray A]

Ray,

That's your best shot??? It's pathetic, man. Give it up.

Believing that it's possible the LDS church could change, and actively wanting it to change are two different things.

I do believe the LDS church could change in this regard (I know you don't). But I'm not invested in it enough, personally, to actively want that change, other than in an academic sense, and in knowing how this impacts people's lives.

Like I said, man, this is pathetic example. Surely I've given better demonstrations of hypocrisy than that - which isn't even hypocrisy, but creative reading on your part. If this is all you can find, boy, I'm a saint. (pun intended)

Rationalise all you want, and that's what this is - pure rationalisation. That's to be expected from you. More to come later in the week.

[_Ray A]

Ray, you foul-mouthed Judas?

Getting even more desperate, Scratch?

[_Mister Scratch]

Ray, you foul-mouthed Judas?

Getting even more desperate, Scratch?

Gonna submit that PM, Ray?

[_beastie]

Rationalise all you want, and that's what this is - pure rationalisation. That's to be expected from you. More to come later in the week.

What in the heck???

Are you serious? You cannot see the difference between believing the LDS church could change and actively wanting that change????*

Wow. Usually I can think of at least one way to rephrase or simplify a statement to help someone not getting it, but, geez, Ray, this is already so simplified that I can't think of a single way to rephrase it.

Let's hope your "more later" has more substance that this first one - otherwise, you're just hanging in the wind. It's not even an example of hypocrisy, and you're going to have to come up with a doozy to beat the hypocrisy you and Dan have demonstrated on this thread.

*to say nothing of how strange it is for Ray to imagine I'm trying to change the LDS church by posting on internet boards!!

[_Bond...James Bond]

I'm still waiting for Dan to show us where LDS scholars have been submitting their most controversial secular theories to wider academia.... He claims he won't reply simply because I am the one doing the asking, so, is anyone else up for it? Beastie? Rollo? Bond? Anyone?

No thanks. (Of course since DCP said he'd only do it on MAD I'm a prime candidate but I'll be off the Net for 10+ days going into the New Year.) Although I don't know why DCP wouldn't answer your questions....perhaps if you agree to meet him halfway (as it were). Perhaps agree to:

Scratch not bringing up Quinn (or gossipmongering in General) and Dan will agree to converse with Scratch on the issue on this board?

Doc Peterson may be more receptive to conversation on the topic of LDS scholarship in wider academia if you agree to shelf the Quinn issue (for at least one thread). A special thread in the Celestial could even be set up (with moderators watching the thread to babysit the thread).

Perhaps if you guys are willing to settle ONE issue, then you might be willing to go from there and settle other ones.

How about it guys?



(Edit: After reading this post I wonder if I'm stoned on Christmas Spirit...)