I met DCP this evening

[_Ray A]

From what I have observed in my years of following Mormon-related message boards, you have been a *double-minded man*, to use the words of James. My first recollection is of you as a defender of the faith, including the Book of Mormon, if I recall correctly. Then you went hog wild to the other side. Then you bounced back again and started being somewhat of an apologist again. Now the pendulum has swung strongly back to the *anti* side of the question, at least in many ways.

Your observations haven't been particularly strong. Your first recollection is wrong. I never defended the faith on ZLMB, and maybe you'd like to consult DCP on that one (I'll even provide the thread concerned if you want, and you can judge whether I was a defender). I think we both agree that this unpleasant episode is now "history". And speaking of history, I never defended the Book of Mormon as history on ZLMB. In my one-on-one debate with Ben Mc Guire, about the Book of Mormon, he tried to convince me it is history, unsuccessfully. Maybe you missed that. My initial intention in going on Z. was to have "reasonable" convsersations about Mormonism, but I soon discovered that there was "no middle ground", and people like you epitomise that. The bombs started flying when I was critical of Anne Perry, a Mormon fiction writer, and Pahoran ignited the fireworks. From that point on I realised that any form of criticism was unwelcome, and I turned against the defenders. (Gad might also like to remind you of that infamous email I sent the Z. moderators.)

When I later went on FAIR, my entrance was greeted with great caution, and the mods had me tagged. I was warned from the start not to cross boundaries, which I did once when I suggested that Joseph Smith might have had a masturbation problem. Yes, it is true that I came to like Mormons very much during my 5,000 posts on FAIR, but generally I was considered a "loyal critic", I think. I defended Mormons when I felt they were under unjustified attack, and yes, I was often an ass, and a bit extreme. My presence on FAIR was seen differently by different people. Some considered me a critic, others a defender, but the truth is I was somewhere in the middle, sometimes critic, sometimes defender, depending on the issue being debated, and where I stood on that issue. Something wrong with that? Or should I just be a one-song drone like you?

Over a year ago I deleted my account on MADB (formerly FAIR), and told Jan Anderson, with whom I had fairly frequent email correspondence, that I could no longer "gag myself". I was restraining myself so as not to offend Mormons, so I did what I've always encouraged others to do - if you don't like the place, leave it. So I left.

Now, if you want more details to get a proper understanding of my history, I can oblige, but it may involve going into areas that some may not like.

What is really "sad", is that it seems almost illegal to voice genuine criticism. It's like you've denied the Holy Ghost, or something. And if you express positive feelings for Mormons/Mormonism, they automatically think you're on your way back to the Church, or encourage you to come back. It's never going to happen, and this is precisely what I told DCP when he visited me, and also told him what I found impossible to accept in Mormonism, such as plural marriage, and that my concept of NDEs told me a very different picture from what I was seeing in LDS doctrine. I took the "Journey of Faith" DVD out of politeness, but it had no effect on me, and didn't change my opinion of the Book of Mormon, but I did enjoy watching all the LDS scholars I'd read in the past.

This is what some of you people have to get out of your thick heads - I will will never be returning to Mormonism. And even if I did in very old age, perhaps, it would be for social or community purposes. Don't think, as some of you have in the past, that you're going to "win" me over again.

[_Mister Scratch]

This coming from the man that knows the joys of circle jerks and gookie cookies.

Way to go, Coach.

I thought people had finally abandoned that myth. Apparently not.

You are mistaken in your belief. Not that it makes any difference to any of you. All the same, you are mistaken. But believe what you'd like. I'm sure William would be offended that there are people that believe me to be him. He was much more impressive in his way of saying things than I could ever hope to be. I miss him.

Oh? So Wheat is actually Will Schryver? That would make a lot of sense, as would the fact that---if it is true---he is apparently lying about it here. His flip-floppery and low tactics have been well documented. My favorite was his false accusation against Dan Vogel concerning a certain footnote/endnote. Another good one was Will's using a sockpuppet to simultaneously attack and brown-nose Vogel. Good stuff!

[_Daniel Peterson]

Ray, I just want to say how grateful I am to you for your politeness in accepting the Journey of Faith DVD as a gift from me. That was very kind on your part.

But it's time for a frank confession: I like most of the Mormons I know and most of the Mormons I meet, and I hold many of them in very high regard. (The same is true for most non-Mormons I meet, as well.)

[_Ray A]

But it's time for a frank confession: I like most of the Mormons I know and most of the Mormons I meet, and I hold many of them in very high regard. (The same is true for most non-Mormons I meet, as well.)

I presume not so much Paul Ray? You are as much an anti-Mormon as I am an anti-Mormon, unless one believes ""wheat", or Paul Ray.

Wheat's comment:

Now the pendulum has swung strongly back to the *anti* side of the question, at least in many ways.

The "at least in many ways" is a subtle honesty he can't escape (he'd prefer me at Church bearing testimony). I call it trying to be objective, and have very frank discussions.

[_The Dude]

This coming from the man that knows the joys of circle jerks and gookie cookies.

Way to go, Coach.

I thought people had finally abandoned that myth. Apparently not.

Why should the hypothesis that "Wheat = William Schryver" be abandoned?

You are mistaken in your belief. Not that it makes any difference to any of you. All the same, you are mistaken. But believe what you'd like.

Well, I like to think that I lean towards beliefs only as long as they keep making sense, but here you are posturing that this is just a "myth" and it is somehow surprising that people "still" believe it. Okay, so why do you say that, Wheat? Is there something I don't know about... besides your denials that seem quite consistent with the hypothesis in question?

I'm sure William would be offended that there are people that believe me to be him. He was much more impressive in his way of saying things than I could ever hope to be. I miss him.

LOL That's a funny thing to say no matter who you really are.

[_Ray A]

for what it's worth, I don't think Wheat is Will Schryver. Wheat posted at the same time as WS, so I think it's unlikely. He/she does have a good knowledge of the Book of Abraham debate, that's one thing I gathered, but posted on the same thread as WS.

In Feb., not long after Wheat joined MDB, he/she posted this:

I'm not even a church-going LDS and I know that.
(Sat Feb 23, 2008 2:28 pm)

But he/she was either reactivated, or lying in the following post:

I think I’m a 100% orthodox chapel Mormon in almost every way I can imagine. And the folks I have known in the various wards and stakes I’ve lived in are, with some exceptions, pretty much just like me.
(Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:27 pm)

A bit of "double-mindedness" there?

Wheat is also, with Shryver, an extreme Runtu-hater:

Runtu = the Mark Hoffman of the exmormon world.
(Sun Jul 27, 2008 12:27 pm )

It's just that Runtu Hoffman has taught them all how to play this game, and now that they've found how much fun it can be, they just don't want to stop. (Sun Jul 27, 2008 12:43 pm)

I still don't think there's any connection to Shryver.

Some more interesting "eloquence" from Wheat:

As far as Heber C. Kimball's proposed solution to pressing social problems _ sounds good to me. Hang a few gays, prostitutes, child molesters, defrauders, and the like in the public square, and before too long you'll have produced a much more hospitable environment for making and raising families.

Start with the apostates ... (Sun Jul 27, 2008 12:37 pm)

Yes, Wheat, and to think that I was the one who once suggested that Mormons could be killed if verbal attacks on them became too vicious.

I suppose you live, and you learn, sometimes the hard way.

[_harmony]

I think we all get more mellow as we get older. Either that or the drugs they give us for the joint pain work really well.

[_Ray A]

Either that or the drugs they give us for the joint pain work really well.

I get mine from the local publican. :)

[_squawkeye]

I wouldn't worry or put too much stock in liking the guy after seeing him in his element. People liked Hitler and Mossolini and Richard Nixon too.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I wouldn't worry or put too much stock in liking the guy after seeing him in his element. People liked Hitler and Mossolini and Richard Nixon too.

DCP, Hitler, and Mussolini. We're the team.

We always thought Nixon was too nice.