Congratulations DCP

[_Ray A]

I wrote it for myself several years ago, but I've decided I'll dedicate it to you. I've just sent you the lyrics in a PM.

So when did you make the big change Will?

I'm not done yet, Ray. Not done. In fact, truth be told, all I manage are a few baby steps at a time. I wish I could be as fruitful as many people I have seen in my life. But, alas, I'm just one of the "weakest of the Saints" trying to push ahead as best I can; still tormented by my own "thorns in the flesh" but unwilling to surrender altogether. So I just try to keep myself pointed in the right direction on the path, and put one foot in front of the other ...

I think you are right. Coming from an exmo, I would never accept what you wrote, but I respect the opinions of Mormons. It is time for me to stop the hypocrisy. I am most comfortable in my natural environment - among crude, swearing truck and taxi drivers. I think you're consistent, and I respect you for that, and I pay attention to your one post more than all the exmo posts on this board. Perhaps the Spirit inspired you to write that. I've been thinking for a long time, and maybe it is time for me to stop straddling. As addictive as forums are - it's time for me to bid a final farewell, and get on with my life, among my crude, uncouth, swearing taxi driving mates. I'm not cutting off the possibility of some distant future return to Mormonism, and you're right, the heart wants it to be, but it is not yet to be, for me. I cannot, simply cannot, turn against Mormonism. I am not putting on an act. I find it very difficult to even utter criticisms of Mormonism anymore. It's just not "in me". But I think I understand the charges of hypocrisy. Gandhi was right when he said that the greatest malaise in humanity is inconsistency between thought and deed, but I don't see this in Dan Peterson, which is why I respect his integrity so much.

It is in the best interest of all, mostly me, that I leave, and this time I'm not kidding. I cannot be critical, yet I cannot make that leap of faith. I will therefore not be posting on any Mormon-related boards anymore, and will be removing them from my bookmarks.

Fire away exmos. See you in hell.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Remember when you were in grade school...or perhaps even middle school and you "got into a fight" with your friend and the kids chose sides? And in the middle of class you passed "hate notes" and shot dirty looks at the other kids?

That's what this thread is.

Rather true, on the whole.

Of course, it's a bit assymetrical. While I post under my own name, anonymous/pseudonymous critics fault my behavior, attack my character, ridicule my job performance [!], misrepresent my writing, and falsify my past. And then, not uncommonly, if I complain they accuse me of whining and "playing the victim."

And Beastie wonders why I don't take this place seriously as an intellectual venue . . .

I don't know what academic life is like at the rarefied altitudes where the illustrious Guy Sajer used to hang out, but, in my humble circles, the predominant style of discourse here simply doesn't occur. I get along just fine with my academic colleages, Mormon and non-Mormon. They obviously don't realize that the foremost judges of scholarship and character post anonymously on message boards.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I'll take you seriously when you drop your anonymity.

One-note-wonder-Bob ... or, should I say, "Plutarch"?

Use of pseudonyms in published revelations is one thing; reading any Russian novel or historical piece, one can see that pseudonyms are common. They are not the same thing as being anonymous.

Sure they are -- in both instances one is concealing his/her identity.

But, using the name Rollo Tomasi to attack living people ...

I have attacked no one.

... and vilify them and their reputations is quite another.

I have vilified no one.

It is despicable.

It's a discussion board, Bob. Get a thicker skin or learn to back up your arguments and writings.

You and your conjoined twin, Mr. Scratch, have no place among persons with integrity.

Now you're just mimicking Bishop Dan. And this is rather ironic, coming from one who manipulates quotes to further his argument and then blames it on a lack of space.

Those of you who think that being anonymous is a justification for spitting forth vile statements about living persons are just plain wrong by any right thinking person's notion.

The statements here, whether anonymous or not, are based on the substance, not the person. When I criticize your publications, I am criticizing your product, not you. The fact you apparently can't see the difference speaks volumes of your martyr complex.

And, then, those who post attacks against the Church and its doctrine anonymously pose an additional issue of wrongness and hypocrisy when they maintain their good church position in the real lives.

Disagreeing with a doctrine or policy is not an "attack." LDS members do not have to check their brains and judgment at the door.

What rank hypocrisy.

What rank paranoia.

Show some courage and live your private and public lives the same.

And you have?

I don't want to be a one-note Johnny on this issue ...

This is very nearly the only issue you've been raising for years, Bob. Nothing more than 'attack the messenger rather than address the message.' Why? Because you always get your butt kicked whenever you dare venture into the message, and it vexes you. Quit whining and respond to the substance of the arguments.

[_rcrocket]

And this is rather ironic, coming from one who manipulates quotes to further his argument and then blames it on a lack of space.

Not sure what you mean by this comment.

It is not an issue of thin skin. I never "lose" it on this board and have never "lost" it. I do not take offense and have not taken offense. I figure if I come on this board as one who believes that Joseph Smith saw the Father and the Son, I should be prepared for the brickbats such as those you throw. Rather than "thin skin," I like to point out the hypocrisy and cowardice of several posters, including you. But, don't take it personally. You are just a non-person. There is nothing to take personally.

rcrocket

[_Rollo Tomasi]

And this is rather ironic, coming from one who manipulates quotes to further his argument and then blames it on a lack of space.

Not sure what you mean by this comment.

You know exactly what I mean. Go back and review the Bishop quote you butchered in your FARMS review.

It is not an issue of thin skin. I never "lose" it on this board and have never "lost" it. I do not take offense and have not taken offense.

You are always losing it here; hence, your constant need to attack a poster rather than address the issue.

I figure if I come on this board as one who believes that Joseph Smith saw the Father and the Son, I should be prepared for the brickbats such as those you throw.

Red herring. Your behavior here has nothing to do with our respective beliefs. The "brickbats" have to do with your lack of substance or weak arguments, that's all.

Rather than "thin skin," I like to point out the hypocrisy and cowardice of several posters, including you.

Since when did open discussion and debate become "hypocrisy"? You hate the fact that folks can be honest in their opinions and you can't sic the SCMC after them.

But, don't take it personally.

I don't.

You are just a non-person.

Who can opine and speak without censorship. In your fantasy world, such freedom would not exist.

There is nothing to take personally.

Agreed.

[_beastie]

And Beastie wonders why I haven't selected it as the focus of my intellectual life . .

This is such a rank distortion of what I said it can only be deliberate.

[_beastie]

And, for Beastie to make the argument that I am naïve about this issue when it comes to the internet is merely justification for evil.

Well, I guess having locks on our doors is merely justification for evil, too, but you're a naïve fool if you choose to do without them.

[_rcrocket]

You know exactly what I mean. Go back and review the Bishop quote you butchered in your FARMS review.

You must be mistaken. All my quotes were accurate. I have had discussions with Will Bagley about the very letter you reference and my treatment of it, and he has never questioned my selection of quotes.

Nor has anybody who has ever published a review of my work nor commented publicly ever questioned my quotes. They have pointed out other minor errors.

You are always losing it here; hence, your constant need to attack a poster rather than address the issue.

Breast-beating about your claimed victories only convinces the ignorant.

rcrocket

[_Daniel Peterson]

And Beastie wonders why I haven't selected it as the focus of my intellectual life . .

This is such a rank distortion of what I said it can only be deliberate.

I'm having fun. Some of you here have such hyper-inflated senses of self-importance.

[_beastie]

Ray,

Despite the fact that I have no respect for your intellectual stance regarding the Mormon/exmormon relationship, nor your strange ideas regarding some upcoming quasi-holocaust against Mormons, I do wish you the best in your return to the faith. I believe people are always happiest when they are true to their beliefs. When I believed in Mormonism, I lived it. I would not have been able to live with myself otherwise. There's nothing in the "pagan lifestyle" I wouldn't give up without a second thought if I believed again.