In the scheme of things of the big picture I appreciate its not big deal. I think the only reason I’m posting this is to expose Ray, whom I obviously have an issue with.
As far as Shades
horror of horror forbidden words “preferential treatment” I was aware that the Spalding theory needed protection from being sabotaged and by extension so did Dale but from potential harassment which never developed. Dale makes the thread, his health is an issue in that he should not need spend time dealing with insults at all. So to that extent I gave preferential treatment, that is I acted in the best interest of the Spalding thread to keep it free of off topic posts. On the whole little was needed to be done, because most self moderate.
As far as Ray’s motivations. I think it was a function of a month long discussion I had with him in which he took it as an insult to his intelligence and he seemed sensitive to the notion that I would think of him as gullible not that I brought that up, he did. But my disagreement with his views whether it be NDE’s, Spalding-rigdon he seemd to interpret as personal affronts to his intelligence. Frequently in discussion rather than issues his replies were one or more of the following…I was closed minded, biased and/or ill informed. Issues were rarely discussed.
Here’s an example from the Pearl Curran thread.
Ray wrote:So this is how it works - marg is look for criticism of NDE’s. She discovers Woerlee on Google (but hasn’t read a single book on the subject) and from henceforth he’s the Ultimate Authority on near death experiences. Bar none. … I think those following marg’s comment on the S/R Theory should bear all of this in mind.” (*note I’d hardly written anything in the S/R thread but Ray was tying how I view NDE’s with how I view Spalding theory, that bias was my prime motivation, not reasoning*.
Ray wrote:: Jan 21, 2009 12:03 am
Yeah, I've learned your method, marg - "Don't even consider it!! We already have ALL the answers." So let's all sit back and kick up our feet knowing that consciousness cannot possibly survive death!! And to think this is "irrational". I repeat, you do not have an open mind.
Snip<<
Ray wrote: Jan 20, 2009 8:33
More dogma, dogma, dogma. All dogma. This is where youare totally irrational, and your mind totally closed. Let me once again remind you of how much you haven't read. You say "I want the truth, I want the proof, but only on 'these conditions'......
marg's circular argument, once again: "It's not true because it couldn't be true, therefore there's no point investigating something that couldn't be true."
Snip<<
Choice reasoning, and no bias from Worlee, no bias nor ulterior motives from the Spalding witnesses possible, whatsoever, of course.
While that may be a legitimate argument even when I brought up evidence and reasoning I’d still get that sort of response.
Certainly Ray has no interest in the spalding rigdon theory which he says should be viewed with contempt.
For whatever reason I guess because he feel it’s against his position he thinks anyone who favor the S-R theory should not moderate it.
Ray wrote: on Jan 30, 2009 11:45 pm
The real problem here is that you should not have been assigned to moderate this thread, because every man and his dog knows how you feel about the Spalding Theory. Nor should anyone against the Spalding Theory be assigned.
Given his stance he meant to say anyone “
for the theory should not moderate it”. However that makes little sense, someone for the theory is more interested in it not being sabotaged by derailment than someone against it.
I’m simply going to post excerpts of the exchange with Ray over 1 month period, to show his attitude toward me in discussion was dismissive. By the end of the discussion just before he started this thread, he stated he was not going to indulge me further. And throughout the discussion he charged me frequently with bias. That attitude of his extended to his view of my position of the S-R theory. For whatever reason he was intent on labeling and even smearing me with the label bias such that I and my view should be dismissed and similarly so should my status of moderating. Because Ray mentioned that I don’t appreciate how insulting it is to him for me to question or disagree with his decision making choices, I believe he was motivated to label me biased so that he could feel better about himself. If he could convince himself and perhaps others I’m biased to the point of not being able to reason objectively then he can dismiss my challenges to his views entirely and therefore I’m not a threat to his perception of himself, his ego.
Dec 29 – Jan 27
Encounter with a Young Lady Thread
Ray: Dec 30, 2008 6:04 pm
5) You shouldn't be discussing any of this because it's only for gullible believers. I await your next post marg, on a subject you shouldn't be discussing. (* note Ray bring up gullibility and then continues in posts attempting to make it look like I’ve been accusing him of being gullible all along)
Marg: Dec 30, 2008 6:35 pm
Well I shouldn't be discussing this with believers who do not want to allow for differing opinions they find objectionable.
Ray Dec 30 6:41
And do you accept that I accept they are not liars? Without referring to me as a "guillible believer"?
Marg: Dec 30, 2008 6:58 pm
I don't know how much you buy into Storm's story. But for argument sake I'll assume that you do but let's say you don't think it really happened you think it only a dream or an hallucination, I wouldn't call you gullible on that.
Snip<<<
Look Ray, do you believe that sleeping with a Bible will get rid of horrendous, hellish nightmares? Do you believe that turning Christian and believing in the Christian God will get rid of those same nightmares.
Do you think those nightmares she claims to have had...would have disappeared because of the reasoning she gave?
Ray: Dec 30, 2008 7:17 pm
So now we get to the crux of the matter, "do I really believe???" (gullible believer again).
Marg: Dec 31, 2008 12:14 am
You asked me a question which was "And do you accept that I accept they are not liars? Without referring to me as a "guillible believer"?" In order for me to answer that, I need to ask you further questions to determine if I think you are gullible or not. I need to see what you believe and your reasoning for that.
Ray: Dec 31, 2008 5:24
It's quite possible, but there may be other explanations. For her that is what worked, not popping pills or visiting doctors. There's not much medicine can do about hellish nightmares either, as far as I'm aware.
Marg: Dec 31, 2008 6:37 pm
Ok Ray, now that I have your answer, I think you are gullible.
Ray: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:32 am
I understand. Calling someone a "liar" is "no big deal". That's also indirectly aimed at me, your "gullible one". You have made a "big deal" about it.
And you still have no idea how you're insulting my intelligence.Marg: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:33 am
There you go again, not allowing that others have a different opinion than you without it being a major insult to you. Your entire intelligence does not rest solely on your decision making on this one event. Isn't it possible you are wrong. I thought you were an open minded individual, or so you've told me in this thread.
Sethbag: Well, I do regret that this thread has devolved into sniping in the way it has. I think that the topic of NDE and dream-related religious experiences is a valid one, and worthy of some comment from those who disbelieve them (as I also do).
Ray: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:42 pm
I don't mind reading your critical comments, Seth. But I'd rather not be called "gullible" if I have a different view. There's nothing iron-clad or fixed about this, as far as I'm concerned, and I'd welcome your usual incisive criticisms.
Marg: Jan 02, 2009 2:29 pm
The word gullible exists for a reason. It describes a person too trusting of other's claims. You asked if I thought you gullible. I questioned you on the passenger's claims and asked if you thought that sleeping with Bible, and turning to Christianity and believing in a christian God would get rid her of nightmares. I believe you responded that you thought it possible. I interpreted based on the rest of this discussion that you pretty much had accepted the claims made by this girl.
Marg: Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:39 pm
What you wish to believe should not skew what studies actually do reveal. What I want you to do Ray is accept that people can reject quite rationally the theory that there is some otherworldly after life phenomenon going on, without you thinking they are closed minded to do so.
Ray: Fri Jan 02, 2009 9:33 pm
And what I'd like you to do, marg, is accept that people who differ with your view on this are not necessary "gullible".
Marg: Jan 04, 2009 3:25 am
Keep in mind that when I said you were gullible it was in response to you saying that your passenger's nightmares may have in fact been cured by going to church and sleeping with the Bible.
Jan 17 - 27
Pearl Curran exchanges with Ray (automatic writing) Thread
Ray: Jan 17, 2009 11:27 am
I've read far too many accounts of automatic writing to believe it's a phenomenon that we can just disregard because we can't explain it. The human mind and subconscious, I believe, is far from explained, and the possibilities are almost endless.
Marg: Jan 17, 2009 11:50 am
The possibilities are not endless, the possibilities in your imagination and others is what is endless.
Snip<<<
If Smith had a great ability to write "automatically" then that would have been observed by many others besides the select few of under 10 friends and family, and Smith would have wanted others not closely connected to him to observe his prolific speedy writing ability and there would have been no need to be so secretive about it all.
Ray: Sat Jan 17, 2009 12:02 pm
The Spalding theory takes a lot more imagining. Maybe one day someone will find that precious missing link.
Snip<<<
There was no secrecy, no notes, no manuscript was read from (how do you read a MS with your head in a hat?), all of the witnesses who were present at the "translation" at one stage or another said he dictated it without notes. Later on when he received revelations that became the D&C witnesses said the same thing, that it came to him as they were present in the same room. Section 76 is another example.
Marg: Jan 17, 2009 12:21 pm
Of course there was secrecy, why so many inconsistent descriptions on how it was done.
Snip<<<
That's where you are so wrong. It takes a lot more imagining to think Smith could dictate the Book of Mormon in a short period of time, no notes, just ramble it off, and keep the storyline straight, than to believe the Spalding witnesses (who had nothing to gain by doing so) who said Spalding who been known to write over many years, had read to them his manuscript he was working on, and that having read or perused the Book of Mormon..they recognized Spalding's work in it.
Ray: Sat Jan 17, 2009 1:04 pm
And there are no inconsistent descriptions in the Spalding theory? It all fits together perfectly, and the Book of Mormon authorship thread, now at 39 pages is, I guess, really discussing a fait accompli.
Snip<<<Then head on to the Book of Mormon authorship thread and find the alternative answer. It's still at 39 pages. Not to mention the Dan Vogel thread, which was much longer. But I know you've already written Vogel off, because he doesn't know much about Mormon history, does he?
Marg: Jan 17, 2009 1:47 pm
What on earth does the Spalding theory have to do with the witness descriptions being inconsistent? Get with the program ..stay focussed.Snip<<<
Again Ray we are discussing your claim to Smith's automatic writing, not the Spalding theory.Ray: But it matters not if the Spalding witness are inconsistent. I've got that packed down
Marg: Sat Jan 17, 2009 3:02 pm
In critically evaluating Smith's account of writing the Book of Mormon, the Book of Mormon witnesses' dictation account..it matters not one iota what the Spalding witnesses said about anything relating to the Spalding theory. You simply are going off an a tangent..
Ray: Here's your view in a nutshell, marg, the Book of Mormon witnesses are all unreliable liars and frauds, but the Spalding witnesses are all pure in motivation and honest in deed. They can do no wrong. Oh, they would never have an ulterior motive for anything. They did this out of the goodness of their hearts. Many years after the events they all remember every detail with perfect consistency and there are no variations in their stories, which all match perfectly.
Marg Jan 17, 2009 3:02 pm
Again Ray you are going off on a tangent. The issue in this thread is critically evaluating how Smith wrote the Book of Mormon , whether he used "automatic writing" and related to the issue of automatic writing is what witnesses stated. The Spalding/Rigdon theory is completely irrelevant to these issues. It matters not one wit what Spalding witnesses said. And once again you are misrepresenting what I've said. I've never said Spalding witnesses have perfect memory, nor that they are consistent in their accounts.Marg: Their stories aren't consistent and they are to put in plainly absolutely ridiculous..defy natural physical laws.
Ray: Jan 17, 2009 3:25 pm
And that is the crux of your whole argument and whole motivation, marg. Others, with more open minds consider other possibilities. Automatic writing isn't necessarily magical.
Marg: Jan 17, 2009 4:18 pm
Looking into a hat and reading off glowing words off a rock as described by witnesses, defies natural physical laws.
Snip<<
You do a lot of reading (apparently) but little critical thinking about what it is you do read. And by the way, for NDE's it can all be explained medically/scientifically. But of course if someone wants to believe some supernatural claim, as you seem to have a propensity to do time and time again, they can ignore looking for the rational explanation and take the easy route and assume the supernatural.
Ray: Jan 17, 2009 4:24 pm
Perhaps IANDS can arrange for you to present a lecture at their annual conference. I think they'd love to hear your explanations. And perhaps you should tell the newest scientific investigators, a UK medical team conducting a three year research project into clinical death that they should cancel their project. Just explain to them what you know. It could save them lots of money.
Marg: Sat Jan 17, 2009 5:08 pm
Well we should get back to that discussion on NDE's and I will. You make it sound as if the scientific investigators think there is something beyond physiological
Ray: Jan 17, 2009 5:42 pm
And I'll give you one short answer since this isn't the NDE thread, and my time is nearly finished for today. No reputable scientific commentator, including Susan Blackmore, the chief skeptic of NDEs, has said there's a final answer - problem solved. To the contrary, Blackmore even admitted that "they might be true". Why?
Because in spite of her skepticism, she's still more open-minded than marg.Marg: Jan 18, 2009 1:49 am
Ray being open minded does not mean one needs to accept a claim, one can be open minded yet reject a claim, until evidence warrants a change in opinion. It's called having a skeptical attitude.
Ray: Sun Jan 18, 2009 5:04 pm
Then I reject the S/R theory until I see convincing evidence. And I'd rather follow that debate on the authorship thread, where the main advocates of that theory are being far more reasonable. Marg: Jan 20, 2009 6:09 pm
No Ray is wasn't balanced at all. There was no substance in there only criticism of skeptics and talk of someone Parnia who is going to do studies. The whole article was biased and implying that OBE's and NDE's might truly be physically out of body experiences. So when you or Parnia or whoever actually has some subtance then you can talk about OBE' & NDE's might be true, in a highly probable way. by the way as far as Pam Reynolds ..Woerlee addressed that.
Ray:
So this is how it works - marg is looking for criticism of NDEs. She discovers Woerlee on Google (but hasn't read a single book on the subject), and from henceforth he's the Ultimate Authority on near death experiences. Bar none.
Snip<<<
But marg renders this as the final word in near death studies.
I think those following marg's comments on the S/R Theory should bear all of this in mind. *note I’d hardly written anything in the S/R thread but Ray was tying how I view NDE’s with how I view Spalding theory, that bias was my prime motivation, not reasoning*.
Ray: Jan 21, 2009 12:03 am
Yeah, I've learned your method, marg - "Don't even consider it!! We already have ALL the answers." So let's all sit back and kick up our feet knowing that consciousness cannot possibly survive death!! And to think this is "irrational".
I repeat, you do not have an open mind. Snip<<
Ray: Jan 20, 2009 8:33
More dogma, dogma, dogma. All dogma. This is where you are totally irrational,
and your mind totally closed. Let me once again remind you of how much you haven't read. You say "I want the truth, I want the proof, but only on 'these conditions'......
marg's circular argument, once again: "It's not true because it couldn't be true, therefore there's no point investigating something that couldn't be true."
Snip<<
Choice reasoning, and no bias from Worlee, no bias nor ulterior motives from the Spalding witnesses possible, whatsoever, of course.Marg: Jan 20, 2009 10:19 pm
Ray don't argue with intellectual dishonesty, you know I said Woerlee comes from a non-religious bias perspective, so don't suggest otherwise, and that when one looks at what he has to say on the issue, they should keep that in mind. That doesn't mean one discredits his insights, it means one critically evaluates it.[b]
And do me a favor --quit dragging the Spalding witnesses into this or how I view them as you've established no correlationb]
Ray Jan 27, 2009 8:15 pm
What is really frustrating about this discussion is your ignorance of a subject you know precious little about.
And I'm no longer going to indulge you. [Last post by Ray in thread]
Then Tue Jan 27, 2009 8:41 pm tRay starts thread does Does Uncle Dale Receive Special Protection Here?
Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 8:41 pm
EXTENT of my moderation Posts I moved from the Authorship thread to off topic catch all thread
Off Topic Comments from Book of Mormon Authorship ThreadRay welcome to explain how any are on-topic.
So what else is there?
Here is the exchange between Mikwut and Dale where I didn’t. (For brevity purposes I’m only posting relevant portions of posts)
Mikwut p 39 Jan 18 10:54 a.m.:
Your speculating that another secret kept means, despite all the historical evidence to the contrary, you can move the historical goalposts anywhere you want. It is just plain silly. This I am beginning to understand is part of your game,
Dale 11:29 Jan 18:
Please do not accuse me of playing any games. I'm as serious as a heart-attack about
this latter day secrecy issue. I did not leave the church of my baptism and confirmation
over any "game-playing." The current (and past) leaders of that church know very well
that Joseph Smith, Jr. was a secret polygamist at Nauvoo, and
Snip<<< Again ----- before you accuse me of playing any "games" here ----- I point out
Mikwut: 1:57 jan 18 P 40
Even if you looked great....grandson in the eyes. I am not persuaded by your many emotional zingers from the leaving the CoC..
Dale 12.27. Jan 18 p. 40
Unless you have direct questions about historical sources and ways to
access and study those sources, I see nothing more that I can convince
you of here. I certainly will not sit idly by and have my faith insulted
by the Brighamites.
Mikwut 12:48 Jan 18: .p40
If by your "faith" your speaking of the S/R theory I will not make any more insults for its lacking nature historically has and is speaking for itself. If I am being confused for ever attacking your faith as in God or religion, I offer you the most sincere of apologies for that I don't do.
Later Brent writes in the thread which I moved to off topic along with 4 other posts by Harmony and Bryon related to the “insult”
Brent Jan 18, 2009 7:09 pm Hi Dale, Please clarify what you mean by...
Uncle Dale wrote:
I certainly will not sit idly by and have my faith insulted by the Brighamites.
Marg: Sun Jan 18, 2009 7:01 pm
I've moved a few posts which have tended to veer off topic to the main issue to off-topic Book of Mormon authorship thread If anyone feels differently they may repost. {Note I supplied a link as well)
Note to Brent on thread: Marg: Mon Jan 19, 2009 1:53 am
Brent your post generated off topic posts - that's not your fault. Dale has contributed extensively to the thread. So have critics. He is in poor health, so responding in this thread is difficult for him. You did not use an ad hom but your question addressed Dale's response to one. Ad homs are off topic. While he responded to it, that does not mean the thread should then veer off into continued discussion, with a focus on his response. I know you are well respected within Mormon/exmormon community. I've read some of your posts, and an article by you and I respect your contributions. This was not to curtail you and your opinion on this issue. It was to keep the thread focused and on topic, taking into consideration other factors I've mentioned.
I have moved a few posts to the off-topic thread here (link supplied..note only one post of Brent’s was moved ..his question post to Dale)
So beside the off topic posts I moved, there was the retroactive change in Bryon’s post of removing Danny Boy with Daniel, I noted I changed it and also I tried to contact Bryon to have him fix it. I brought this to everyone’s attention in this thread, it was not something noted previously.
I removed 3 smilies from Why me’s post and noted I moved them as well as note for why me to read rules.
The only other thing I did was make a note to Mikwut when he said to Dale “Not only is UD flippant dismissal simplistic and ridiculous the reply he does give us fails miserably.”
I did not delete or move anything Mikwut said. I noted in the mode note that in the context of the exchanges that Dale had been asked for a concise reply and Mikwut had turned that concise aspect into ad hominem not warranted.
As far as my comments about the church at one point and it being a mulit-billion dollar organization, that didn’t relate to Dale. What I was considering is that the church has billions to promote the Smith only theory, but that the Spalding theory has no such support. So it was the discussion, not Dale that I was interested in keeping focused.