Hey Ray

[_Bryan Inks]

When you break down curse words to their meaning you have either words that degrade sexual union, degrade women, or degrade the human body in general. At its base level profanity is irreverent, at its worst it is degrading.

With the understanding that we are here to lift and build one another as children of God, and with the end goal of being like God ourselves, using profanity distances us from these goals.

Call for sources.

A. You obviously don't know the history of most of the current "vulgar" terms and how they came about.

B. Mind explaining how the phrase, "B***s***" degrades women, human bodies or "sexual union"?

C. To make the claim as you did above, I'm forced to assume that you really don't know what you are talking about. What words were considered vulgar in the 1920s? Why? And please explain step B for at least 3 examples.

D. Can you do it for 1845? How about 1630?

E. When did "F***" first become used and from where does it originate?

Please elucidate your claims and include evidences.

[_DonBradley]

Hi Ray,

How are things in the hemisphere where toilet water swirls "backwards"? :-P

If I recall correctly from your posts a few years ago on ZLMB, you've been through various stages in your own relationship to Mormonism. As I recall, you left the church, and may have for some time disbelieved, or at least doubted, the Book of Mormon and Mormonism altogether. I know that your position has now for years been *very* strongly in favor of the Book of Mormon as God-inspired, though not historical. (by the way, I recently located and downloaded a paper you published in an Australian periodical on the future of the Book of Mormon. I'm looking forward to reading it.)

Given your past conflicted relationship with Mormonism (if I'm understanding and recalling correctly), do you feel you understand the nonbelieving position? I know you have a deep distaste for RfM-style ridicule of the Book of Mormon and Mormonism, a distaste I understand all too well. But some of your feeling seems to be directed also against simple nonbelief in, or rejection of, the Book of Mormon and other Mormon fundamentals. Is this a position for which you have no sympathy? Do you think it crystal clear that the Book of Mormon is true, despite its false *claim* to historicity and the (admittedly, as I understand your view) false and immoral prophetic claims of its author/"translator" in his Nauvoo practice of polygamy?

I'm curious where you draw the line between honest rejection of the Book of Mormon (assuming you believe in such a thing), and anger that you see as driven by a desire to deny the evident truths of the book? What truths, by the way, do you think people are trying to reject? As I understand it, you reject many of the things it declares true, including its claims to historicity, its threats that someday you will have to face Jacob, Moroni, et al. at the judgment bar, some of its theology, and its very clear and strident teaching on the seriousness and fatal immorality of sex outside of marriage. From the perspective of nearly all other believers in the Book of Mormon, this constitutes a rejection of many of the book's most fundamental truths. How do you square this with your condemnation of others who are supposedly driven to anger by a desire to (similarly) reject teachings the book claims to be true?

I don't know how all this will come across when you read it on your screen. It isn't meant to be derogatory toward you at all. But I do think it's fair to put "hard questions" to you about where you stand, *why* you stand there, and how you differentiate what you criticize in others from what you admittedly do yourself.

Pesteringly,

Don

[_Ray A]

Hi Ray,

How are things in the hemisphere where toilet water swirls "backwards"? :-P

Well, Don, that's the first myth of your post!!!

If I recall correctly from your posts a few years ago on ZLMB, you've been through various stages in your own relationship to Mormonism. As I recall, you left the church, and may have for some time disbelieved, or at least doubted, the Book of Mormon and Mormonism altogether. I know that your position has now for years been *very* strongly in favor of the Book of Mormon as God-inspired, though not historical. (by the way, I recently located and downloaded a paper you published in an Australian periodical on the future of the Book of Mormon. I'm looking forward to reading it.)

I have always "tested" everything I believed. I never doubted the Book of Mormon anymore than any theist may doubt, at times, the existence of God. These are not "tangibles". One's conclusion is not the same as one's speculations about those conclusions, so you are right about my "final analysis". It is quite sure.

Given your past conflicted relationship with Mormonism (if I'm understanding and recalling correctly), do you feel you understand the nonbelieving position?

No. I think it is braindead, because it stops prematurely. Have you read C.S. Lewis?

I know you have a deep distaste for RfM-style ridicule of the Book of Mormon and Mormonism, a distaste I understand all too well. But some of your feeling seems to be directed also against simple nonbelief in, or rejection of, the Book of Mormon and other Mormon fundamentals. Is this a position for which you have no sympathy?

Yes. Because it's braindead. Like claiming to understand the purpose of the universe when we can only guess. My "guess" is that there is an intelligent Designer, if that helps you to understand.

Do you think it crystal clear that the Book of Mormon is true, despite its false *claim* to historicity and the (admittedly, as I understand your view) false and immoral prophetic claims of its author/"translator" in his Nauvoo practice of polygamy?

Now Don, don't put words into my mouth. I said that Joseph Smith was a complex person, and I have long agreed with Dr. Lawrence Foster's assessment of this (see my posts on FAIR), and he never concluded that Joseph Smith was a "fraud". So why should I, as a believer? In fact Foster said that the First Vision "could very well be true".

I'm curious where you draw the line between honest rejection of the Book of Mormon (assuming you believe in such a thing), and anger that you see as driven by a desire to deny the evident truths of the book? What truths, by the way, do you think people are trying to reject?

The very truths about human nature. That human nature is, basically, selfish, greedy, self-centred. The Book of Mormon contains the "ideal" for which we may strive, but seldom achieve. But why should I deny that ideal merely because, at this point in time, I cannot achieve it? Self-justification? This is what differentiates between anger and humility - knowing that it has ideals which could make for a perfect society, but rejected because we prefer to rationalise.

As I understand it, you reject many of the things it declares true, including its claims to historicity,

I never said that. You obviously missed Nick's assessment of my position on RFM in 2002. He understood my position better than you do. Do you wish me to post his post again, if you missed it? You might learn a thing or two from him?

its threats that someday you will have to face Jacob, Moroni, et al. at the judgment bar, some of its theology, and its very clear and strident teaching on the seriousness and fatal immorality of sex outside of marriage. From the perspective of nearly all other believers in the Book of Mormon, this constitutes a rejection of many of the book's most fundamental truths. How do you square this with your condemnation of others who are supposedly driven to anger by a desire to (similarly) reject teachings the book claims to be true? Are you that openminded?

Simple - self-justification!

I don't know how all this will come across when you read it on your screen. It isn't meant to be derogatory toward you at all. But I do think it's fair to put "hard questions" to you about where you stand, *why* you stand there, and how you differentiate what you criticize in others from what you admittedly do yourself.

Well, let me now put the "hard questions" to you, Don. Why have you wavered so much? One minute you post on FAIR, then declare you're leaving, only to come back, then leave again, only to come back. One minite you're friendly to Mormonism, next you're aggressive. I've never seen anyone leave and come back to FAIR as much as you have. Your "farewell"posts are now legendary! Do you have some kind of "schizoid" problem? Reading your posts over the years, I never knew where you stood. Now you're claiming to be a "scholar of Mormonism" with no ill feeling, yet here you are sucking up to exmo ****piles, with "You Rock" posts. You seem to be very unsure of your own position. Can you clarify that for me? You went from theist to atheist, and chop and change with the wind. So forgive me, Don, but you seem like a very confused person. Can you explain? I'm sure I'm not the only one who's noticed this about your, er, wavering from pillar to post, like a martyr to your own whims.

Pesteringly,

Ray

[_Ray A]

By the way, Don, would you like me to go back to some of your old posts on FAIR? Sorry, I can't, because you DELETED them after you posted as "Onandagus", and "left the board for good". How deep are your "spiritual conflicts", Don? Then, guess what? You came back!!!!!!! This time disguised as someone "friendly" to Mormonism. Your "objectivity" stinks to high heaven, Don.

[Guest]

Hi Ray,

I'd have appreciated, and expected, a more charitable interpretation of me, but thanks for addressing my questions.

by the way, if you're going to claim that I went back and whitewashed my posting record, please provide links to the relevant posts. I *have* reconsidered a post at times shortly after I wrote it, because I wrote it with too much emotional intensity (something to which you ought to relate); but I have *not* gone back and doctored or deleted my posts long after the fact, as the editing dates on my posts will show.

As for the "hard questions" you've put to me, they appear to center around changing positions. To see this as a vice, you have to take the view that it is noble to hold onto to one's position even if it later appears to be false or not beneficial. It isn't. When my evidence changes, my views change with it. What do you do when your evidence changes?

I also change my actions based on changing moods and circumstances. With MAD, for instance, I get frustrated with the quality of discussion, the rehashing of the same old issues, the uncharitable interpretations (see above); so I leave. But I have an innate desire to discuss things Mormon, and, although I'm experimenting to see if I can carve out a niche on RfM, most of what occurs there repulses me. MAD is a very active, high-volume list; so I've often been drawn back to it.

I'm also in the odd position of being an ex-Mormon who continues to be fascinated with Mormonism, particularly with researching its beginnings. Unlike most people interested in Mormonism, I'm not a believer. The only other groups that tend to take any great interest in Mormonism are evangelical critics and ex-Mormons. I'm sure as hell not an evangelical critic. But I am ex-Mormon, regardless of little I feel like many of the other ex-Mormons I encounter online. So, I would like to carve out a space for myself with other moderate former believers.

But why, exactly, should I have to justify changing my mind to you? This is merely a personal behavior, not a pattern of thinking or living I'm insisting should be universally adopted.

My questions for you have arisen in my mind precisely because you do insist that your position should be universally held, and that those not adopting it are "brain dead" and motivated by immorality--i.e., not abiding the teachings of the Book of Mormon, like that one about the sin like unto murder, which you've admitted to neither believing nor following. You seem to be in a rather precarious position for one insisting that everyone else should adopt his position.

Finally, to move for a moment from these personal matters to the issues of real substance, you've stated that to disbelieve in the Book of Mormon's inspiration is "braindead." For this to be true, the truth of the book would have to be self-evident. Do you really think it is? How?? A book can have fine and beautiful narratives and ideas in it without being divinely inspired--because human beings are capable of developing fine and beautiful narratives and ideas. And, in addition to presenting such narratives and ideas, the Book of Mormon also presents plenty of clunky prose, improbable plots, tangled sentences, violations of basic grammar and sense, and historical inaccuracies galore, and proffers as absolute truth teachings even you reject. How is its truth self-evident??? I don't see it.

Don

[_DonBradley]

By the way, Don, would you like me to go back to some of your old posts on FAIR? Sorry, I can't, because you DELETED them after you posted as "Onandagus", and "left the board for good". How deep are your "spiritual conflicts", Don? Then, guess what? You came back!!!!!!! This time disguised as someone "friendly" to Mormonism. Your "objectivity" stinks to high heaven, Don.

This seems very confused. First, as stated above, I didn't go back and delete posts long after posting them. Second, I couldn't have deleted them after I left as Onandagus, because I had my Onandagus account cancelled at the time I left. Third, even when I posted under the Onandagus username, I signed my messages with my own name--just as I always have. Fourth, you can conclude, if you wish, that I am secretly hostile to Mormonism; but my posts and actions speak for themselves. I think it is no exaggeration to say that my posts tend to be as evenhanded and generous toward Mormonism as those of any nonbeliever. I'm willing to allow others to factor in faith and personal revelation without offering criticism. I have frequently acknowledged that there *is* evidence favoring Mormonism, with the caveat that I see this evidence as much weaker than the counterevidence. And I am able to see and acknowledge a great deal of good in Mormonism, including in the Book of Mormon, despite my nonbelief. The only thing more that could be asked of me from the believing side is that I actually accept LDS beliefs--which I could only do by playing makebelieve. Is that what you think I should do?

Don

[_DonBradley]

DonBradley wrote:

its threats that someday you will have to face Jacob, Moroni, et al. at the judgment bar, some of its theology, and its very clear and strident teaching on the seriousness and fatal immorality of sex outside of marriage. From the perspective of nearly all other believers in the Book of Mormon, this constitutes a rejection of many of the book's most fundamental truths. How do you square this with your condemnation of others who are supposedly driven to anger by a desire to (similarly) reject teachings the book claims to be true?

Ray responded:
Simple - self-justification!


Don:
Uh-huh. So, by rights, your condemnations of those who reject what the Book of Mormon presents as truth should also fall on your own head. But you're able to shield your own ego from them, because, well, you're you? Why on earth should anyone take seriously your condemnations of others for rejecting alleged Book of Mormon truths when you are also "guilty" of the same thing?

[_Ray A]

Hi Ray,

I'd have appreciated, and expected, a more charitable interpretation of me, but thanks for addressing my questions.

by the way, if you're going to claim that I went back and whitewashed my posting record, please provide links to the relevant posts. I *have* reconsidered a post at times shortly after I wrote it, because I wrote it with too much emotional intensity (something to which you ought to relate); but I have *not* gone back and doctored or deleted my posts long after the fact, as the editing dates on my posts will show.

I can't, Don, because you WIPED all of your posts on FAIR (as Onandagus), and abandoned the board, presumably in one of your schizo frames of mind. Sorry to sound so uncharitable, but it seems to me you're trying to accuse me of some kind of "instability", with your posts. If I misread you, then I apologise. But you're hardly a bastion of stability yourself. You have wrestled with Mormonism yourself, and it SHOWS. You want to go back on Z and dig up all the old posts, where I "hated" Dan Peterson? I mean, who are the braindead anti-Mormons who can only see in black and white, like "Mr.Scratch", who obsessively digs up this past dirt?

For the record, I have never "hated" Dan Peterson. That is a figment of "Scratch's" imagination, which makes for some "sensational" but FALSE entries into his so-called "blog". But I'll address "Scratch" personally when he comes out of his burrow of hypocrisy and LIES! The s*** in his blog is up to his ears, and he's drowning in it.

Cheers, Don. Keep up the good work praising the angry anti-Mormon refuse . I'll save some energy to answer Tali-Bachman tomorrow. The would-be Mormon terrorist now turned Saul from Paul. He's fun to debate, because he's just another BRAINDEAD anti-Mormon.

Get on the winning side, Don. Goodnight, and best wishes.

[_cacheman]

DonBradley wrote:
I know you have a deep distaste for RfM-style ridicule of the Book of Mormon and Mormonism, a distaste I understand all too well. But some of your feeling seems to be directed also against simple nonbelief in, or rejection of, the Book of Mormon and other Mormon fundamentals. Is this a position for which you have no sympathy?

Yes. Because it's braindead. Like claiming to understand the purpose of the universe when we can only guess. My "guess" is that there is an intelligent Designer, if that helps you to understand.

Why would someone who "guesses" differently than you do necessarily be considered "braindead"? I'm missing the logic here.

by the way, I have to admit that in my years of observing on the internet, Ray and Don have been two of the most interesting personalities I have seen. I am fascinated by observing the spiritual journey of others. I suspect at this point that Ray is simply having fun trying to get a rise out of people. I think his bark is worse than his bite.

cacheman

[_beastie]

Ray's current criticism of Don:

Well, let me now put the "hard questions" to you, Don. Why have you wavered so much? One minute you post on FAIR, then declare you're leaving, only to come back, then leave again, only to come back. One minite you're friendly to Mormonism, next you're aggressive. I've never seen anyone leave and come back to FAIR as much as you have. Your "farewell"posts are now legendary! Do you have some kind of "schizoid" problem? Reading your posts over the years, I never knew where you stood. Now you're claiming to be a "scholar of Mormonism" with no ill feeling, yet here you are sucking up to exmo ****piles, with "You Rock" posts. You seem to be very unsure of your own position. Can you clarify that for me? You went from theist to atheist, and chop and change with the wind. So forgive me, Don, but you seem like a very confused person. Can you explain? I'm sure I'm not the only one who's noticed this about your, er, wavering from pillar to post, like a martyr to your own whims.

Ray a couple months ago:

Shades,

I appreciate your comments, and let me reiterate again, I have nothing against you personally. I explained to Liz in a PM that I now feel that a more moderated board is better. I've managed to stay on FAIR/MAD for three years, and only ever had one mod warning, very early on, no doubt partly because I'm more sympathetic to Mormons, but with rules one also tends to be more conscious of what is said. Having a board with less rules and moderation is okay if most of the posters share similar worldviews, but when you have Mormons and exmos on the same forum, and few rules, I don't believe it will work properly. My long history of contention with exmos goes back to RFM, and I have learned by sad experience that we will never agree, and this final episode proves it. I feel more comfortable among the believers, and my anger seldom if ever surfaces. I have tried to "fit in" with exmos many times, and it never works.

I will leave brave (or some would say foolish) Wade to cut the ice, but I'm heading for the tropics. When my admiration for Pahoran rises so sharply, I know it's time to depart, like he eventually did. Water and oil don't mix. My "analysis" of my Mormon journey will continue on MAD, where I believe I will receive a more understanding ear, even if it means occasionally checking what I write. I share neither the cynicism nor contempt of Mormons I see among some here, nor do I have any desire nor agenda to change the Church, so we have nothing to discuss. I respect the Church, I respect its leaders, and it pains me to see them denigrated in any way. They are accused of so many wrongs, yet I know and have met many of these men in the flesh, and I know they are not guilty of charges so often laid against them. Worst of all, is that having met Dan Peterson, I abhor the accusations made against him, because I know he's a man of integrity and honesty, who wishes to see a better world, who is straightforward concerning his beliefs, always willing to hear others who talk to him reasonably and respect his beliefs, yet he is so often made out to be a villain, a liar, corrupt, immoral, and just about anything which fits evil or dishonest. It disturbs him too, and I know this for a fact. He is completely perplexed at the hatred demonstrated against him, even by people he has never met nor personally offended. Apparently, his greatest fault is being a believer and an apologist.

Let the venom spew forth. I will have no part of it.

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... &start=210

Ray -

I'm amazed you were even able to type these words in particular:


"Do you have some kind of "schizoid" problem? Reading your posts over the years, I never knew where you stood. "

Are you really this unaware of your own posting style and varying stances? Do you like and respect apologists like Dan and Juliann? Well, it depends on the moment, doesn't it?

You, now, apparently, adamantly believe in not on the Book of Mormon, but all the other truth claims of the LDS church. Yet you are unwilling to live the fairly simple demands God asks of you through his prophet.

And you have the nerve to accuse Don of being "schizoid"?