Ray A: The Gandhi of Internet Mormonism?

[_beastie]

Oh, for heaven's sake, Ray. Let me use an analogy to demonstrate your flawed reasoning (and are we really discussing hypocrisy in regards to whether or not I want the church to change? Like I said, I must be a saint)

Let's take Citizen X, who has become so disillusioned with politics in the US that she no longer affiliates with any party and does not vote. Citizen X, many years ago, used to vote primarily for republicans. Citizen X notes that the Republican party, over the last couple of decades, has become more and more influenced by the religious right, and hence, less true to its original conceptions of less government intrusion. Citizen X has also observed that the republican party's slide to the right has resulted in a number of disaffected leaving the party. Citizen X observes that, since the republican party has demonstrated the tendency to change in the past, it is entirely possible that the republican party may change in the future, as well. She notes that it is quite possible that the existence of, and/or opinions of disaffected republicans may have some influence in enacting future change in the republican party. Citizen X observes this with interest, and discusses these issues with others who are interested as well. But Citizen X, due to her overall disillusionment, has no personal vested interest in this change, does not intend to affiliate with the republican party even if it were to change, and, due to disillusionment with politics in general, does not intend to get involved in politics at all. She remains an interested bystander, with no personal vested interests in the republican party changing its course.

So if Citizen X were to observe that it's possible that the republican party may change in response to disaffected republicans, is she necessarily expressing the DESIRE for the republican party to change, and does she view her conversations about these issues as agitating for change?

[_Ray A]

You might want to be correctly quoting beastie here if you're going to use her comments for a sigline.

Perhaps I could ask her the same. Is she directly quoting me?

Do you want me to provide the time, and date, of the post? If it will please Your Honor?

[_the road to hana]

You might want to be correctly quoting beastie here if you're going to use her comments for a sigline.

Perhaps I could ask her the same. Is she directly quoting me?

Do you want me to provide the time, and date, of the post? If it will please Your Honor?

The relevant post has been topped for you.

[_Ray A]

Oh, for heaven's sake, Ray. Let me use an analogy to demonstrate your flawed reasoning (and are we really discussing hypocrisy in regards to whether or not I want the church to change? Like I said, I must be a saint)

Let's take Citizen X, who has become so disillusioned with politics in the US that she no longer affiliates with any party and does not vote. Citizen X, many years ago, used to vote primarily for republicans. Citizen X notes that the Republican party, over the last couple of decades, has become more and more influenced by the religious right, and hence, less true to its original conceptions of less government intrusion. Citizen X has also observed that the republican party's slide to the right has resulted in a number of disaffected leaving the party. Citizen X observes that, since the republican party has demonstrated the tendency to change in the past, it is entirely possible that the republican party may change in the future, as well. She notes that it is quite possible that the existence of, and/or opinions of disaffected republicans may have some influence in enacting future change in the republican party. Citizen X observes this with interest, and discusses these issues with others who are interested as well. But Citizen X, due to her overall disillusionment, has no personal vested interest in this change, does not intend to affiliate with the republican party even if it were to change, and, due to disillusionment with politics in general, does not intend to get involved in politics at all. She remains an interested bystander, with no personal vested interests in the republican party changing its course.

So if Citizen X were to observe that it's possible that the republican party may change in response to disaffected republicans, is she necessarily expressing the DESIRE for the republican party to change, and does she view her conversations about these issues as agitating for change?

You didn't answer my question. DID you call for change in the Church, at any time, anywhere, on this board?

[_beastie]

You didn't answer my question. DID you call for change in the Church, at any time, anywhere, on this board?

Yes, I called for the LDS church to stop teaching its bigotry against apostates. Well, technically I called on them to "repent" for teaching bigotry.

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... ry&start=0

Of course, I also explained to you that I was "calling" for this as a rhetorical device to demonstrate for you, and others, that the problem in the cycle of anger between exmormon and Mormon begins with the church.

Do you really imagine that I think that my comments on an internet board about the church's bigoted comments about "apostates" is going to influence the church to change? Maybe one of us is that delusional, but it ain't me.

Once again, if this is the best example of my hypocrisy you can find, then I'm a saint.

by the way, I love your sig line. It's a good way to remind folks that bob is a misogynist. Too bad you didn't provide a link so they could follow the link I provided myself to demonstrate how he tried to insult Scratch by calling him female.

[_Ray A]

Yes, I called for the LDS church to stop teaching its bigotry against apostates.

Thank you for your honesty in this instance (not much you can do with so much board evidence to the contrary). So, contrary to your assertion to me, you do have an interest in change, and you're willing to vocally express it. So you were lying to me.

Do you really imagine that I think that my comments on an internet board about the church's bigoted comments about "apostates" is going to influence the church to change? Maybe one of us is that delusional, but it ain't me.

I'm quite certain you did feel that. Shall I go over it again?:

BUT - I actually believe that criticisms of exbelievers [are you an ex-believer?] 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.

Who is delusional here? And then this:

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.

So there's a "simple fact" about all this: You lied to me.

[_beastie]

LOL!

This constitutes "lying"? I'm sorry Ray, but compared to your behavior, this is just plain silly in comparison. This is the best you can do? Man, that is sad.

I do not care if the church changes or not. Discussing whether or not the church is capable of changing, and using a rhetorical device "calling on LDS to repent of bigotry" hardly constitutes proof that I secretly really want the church to change, and am agitating for that.

Besides, I've always made it plain that I "want" the church to change in an academic sense. It's just that I'm not personally invested in it enough for it to be an emotional need. I realize this is probably a distinction you're not capable of recognizing in your current state.

[_beastie]

I have to admit I'm a little disappointed. I've been posting on boards for years, and this is the best dirt Ray could dig up about me. No wonder he thinks I'm trying to look like a goodie-two-shoes.

I actually view my posting style as somewhat rough and tumble. I mean, I'm not comparing myself to people who regularly go wing-nuts, of course.

[_Ray A]

I do not care if the church changes or not.

No? Okay. So you accept you're an evil apostate? You accept that the real reason you left was because of sin?

No worries. Now we are on the same wavelength.

[_beastie]

No? Okay. So you accept you're an evil apostate? You accept that the real reason you left was because of sin?

No worries. Now we are on the same wavelength.

Lord, you're desperate. Not caring if the church changes doesn't equate to agreeing with the church's teachings.

But I'm glad to hear you admit that the church teaches that apostates are evil people who leave to sin. Not sure if you ever denied that, just insisted it was part of their theology and hence not open to change, but it's still nice to see the admission.