Ray A: The Gandhi of Internet Mormonism?

[_Ray A]

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.

It wasn't an admission. It was just a parody to show you it's the last thing you really believe, and you really do want the Church to change this, contrary to what you told me.

Good night. More later.

[_beastie]

It wasn't an admission. It was just a parody to show you it's the last thing you really believe, and you really do want the Church to change this, contrary to what you told me.

Good night. More later.

It's not an admission of what the church believes? Then what does it have to do with me "wanting the church to change"?

Ray, the church changing this teaching won't affect my life at all. That's why I'm not emotionally invested in it enough to change. I academically (meaning it's an issue without emotional investment) would like to see it change due to simply realizing how many lives this teaching affects.

But the lack of impact on my own life, combined with the realization that any change would be long-distant, results in a lack of personal investment in the church changing.

But you go ahead and spin this however you like. I realize you've been cornered and pretty beat up, so you want to lash out in some way, and this is the only thing you can find.

[_Ray A]

I realize you've been cornered and pretty beat up, so you want to lash out in some way, and this is the only thing you can find.

You wouldn't by any chance be the advisor to the MDB Minister of Information, would you?

You sound more and more like him with every post. I could swear you two are related.

[_beastie]

You wouldn't by any chance be the advisor to the MDB Minister of Information, would you?

You sound more and more like him with every post. I could swear you two are related.

This is predictable. I'm just surprised you didn't say we should go out to dinner. LOL.

[_Bond...James Bond]

Well I tried.

*shrugs*

[_harmony]

It's not in Daniel's vested interest to debate the topic at all, which is why he's putting all sorts of binders on it. Never in a million years will he participate here or on MAD on a thread of that magnitude. Daniel isn't about explaining anything; Daniel is all about clouding the issue, smoke and mirrors, red herrings, and generally directing every thread he participates on any board into being about him, his colleagues, his detractors, anything but the LDS church. He may start out actually putting up an apologetic post or two or three, but he will eventually move the subject to something besides the difficulties with the church.

That's me, alright.

I've written and published hundreds and hundreds of pages on Mormon topics, and edited several thousand more for publication, but I've never dealt with an issue. Anywhere. Not one. Not even poorly. It's something of a tour de force, when you reflect on it.

The fact is, I'm terrified of controversy.

That's not what I said, Daniel, no matter how much you might wish differently. Don't respond to me when it's Scratch you're really responding to.

#1. You don't debate. You pontificate. You lecture. Yours is a one-sided equation. You write (a lot); others read. There is no conversation. And when someone doesn't agree with you, and presents their own argument and sources, you get defensive and snarky. (And don't bother denying it. We all know that's what you do. You could learn from David B. about that. He had a truly amazing conversation in Celestial which is still pinned at the top, and admitted that some of the points presented were a new way of looking at things. You, on the other hand, would never entertain a new way of looking at an issue that was presented by someone you didn't trust; you have such an iron-clad absolute belief in your own knowledge that actually entertaining the idea that someone else, with whom you have had an adversarial relationship, might be right is simply impossible.)

#2. You don't participate in threads here or on MAD that might be considered anything close to educational. Threads on which you participate quickly devolve into smoke and mirrors, red herrings, and personalized attacks. There may be a rare thread somewhere in an archive wherein you did more than pontificate, but a full-fledged debate in which you cannot control the other side? Not gonna happen.

It's not that I think you're incapable of sharing your knowledge while learning from others. It's just that an internet bulletin board, no matter how strictly monitored, requires the ability to give and take. You are so accustomed to being the one standing at the podium, controlling the flow of information, that I don't think you could survive a full-fledged debate where you would have no control over the information the other side was presenting. And you certainly would never acknowledge when your opposition scored a point.

[_Daniel Peterson]

You don't know anything about me, harmony.

You deliver sweeping judgments from time to time, but you don't know anything. (I suppose, of course, that knowing nothing makes judging easier. Less clutter.)

[_dartagnan]

You don't know anything about me, harmony.

You're a public figure Dan. Yours is a method that is well understood by those who choose to pay attention. You're not going to get away with this "you know nothing about me," nonsense. If you think harmony is wrong, then provide specifics and prove her error. But you won't, because that would involve something of a debate, which you don't do.

You deliver sweeping judgments from time to time, but you don't know anything. (I suppose, of course, that knowing nothing makes judging easier. Less clutter.)

She obviously knows enough to have you pegged. Your record of online "discussion" backs up her description well enough. You don't debate. You're used to lecture in your daily life, so you take this for granted in your online dealings with critics. You won't engage the critics whom you ridicule in your silly "apologetics by the numbers" type articles, because when you're lecturing and not debating, this cuts down the feedback to a minimum. You only tackle issues where you know you have an ironclad case - which aren't many, by the way. When your case is less than ironclad, you'll only gamble a presentation of it at MADB where you know the mods will jump in and save you from yourself at a second's notice.

[_Coggins7]

Poor, gentle Infymus was minding his own business one lovely spring afternoon, tending to the petunias in his garden and pausing occasionally to save a baby seal, when Big Bad Peterson (taking a lunch break from his day job of slander, libel, cunning deception, shameless lies, and rumor mongering, and having picked poor, gentle Infymus entirely at random) swooped in to the tune of the Darth Vader theme from Star Wars. Amidst peals of thunder, flashes of lightning, and the neighing of terrified horses, Big Bad Peterson deliberately tormented poor, gentle Infymus so severely that poor, gentle Infymus was compelled to express himself in . . . uncharacteristically uncharitable words.

Interesting, because Infymus looks like the kind of person who would beat baby seals to death with a sledge hammer while smoking a joint made of Liquid Nails and DAP. Must just be me...

[_harmony]

You don't know anything about me, harmony.

You deliver sweeping judgments from time to time, but you don't know anything. (I suppose, of course, that knowing nothing makes judging easier. Less clutter.)

Is that the best comeback you can muster? Good grief.

And you don't what I know. For all you know, I'm your next door neighbor.