DiscussMormonism.com

What amazes me is the utter hypocrisy. For example, some time ago on the FAIR board I made a comment about something Kent Jackson had said or did (I vaguely remember the details, but it had to do with his criticism of Nibley).

How did Dan Peterson respond? He immediately emailed Jackson and posted his response. Unfortunately the entire response was a straw man, clarifying something I never said to begin with. Oh I remember now. I said Jackson was called to the carpet for his criticism. Dan understood this to mean “called to the carpet by Church headquarters.” What I meant was that he was called to the carpet by all the Nibley worshippers who didn’t like his criticism. Anyway, the email was long and detailed, assuring the readers that I was lying. Dan’s attempt here was to malign me as a liar. His response was swift and confident.

I don’t recall Bokovoy, Jersey Girl, or anyone else complaining at the time that Dan was “sending emails” in an attempt to demean by character. But can anyone here deny that this is in fact what he tried to do? Of course he was. I also don’t remember anyone calling him a “low life.” And I don’t remember me (unlike Dan and his disciples) crying about what he did either. I kindly pointed out that I didn’t say what Dan attributed to me, and he responded: “Oh, come on!”

“We have lives”, right, Dan?

Like Peterson (a.k.a. Fritz, a.k.a. Logic Chopper, a.k.a. Freethinker), I have a life too, don’t I? Or are the lives of “critics” less valuable than the lives of prominent scholars?

A few years back when Brent Metcalfe was mopping the floors with everyone (including me) who tried to defend the Book of Abraham, I decided to send a request for help that was sent to the LDS Apologetics e-list. This was a list separate from FAIR which included only the elite in LDS apologetics. Doug Yancey tried to get me on it when I was living in Atlanta, but I never did because he and I could never seem to set a time where we could meet and he could verify that I had a temple recommend. Anyway, I passed the request on to Doug (or maybe it was Richard Hopkins) and within a day I received an email from John Tvetdness. This is, as most of you know, one of the elite scholars in the LDS Church. He rubs elbows with all the bright and popular ones.

What was the apologetic wisdom he sent me?

He essentially told me that Brent Metcalf was a charlatan who had taken advantage of a bereaved wife and convinced her to sell him the color photos of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. He also said Brent worked as a security guard at the archives and was a spy for the Tanners – he literally stole material for them to copy and publish. Others shared stories about how Metcalfe was a good friend of Mark Hoffman so our natural association tendencies lead us where that may.

At the time I was a giddy apologist who ate this stuff up. It was the stuff you heard behind the scenes only. It wasn’t something you would read about in a FROB edition. Of course nobody questioned it because it came from on high. Nobody seemed to realize that none of this stuff dealt with Brent’s arguments, so I was left with nothing to offer on ZLMB. But my mind had been poisoned with gossip that was common and well accepted gospel in the apologetic circle.

Soon enough I got brave and brought this up on ZLMB – because I had nowhere else to go with the KEP argument – and Metcalfe immediately put me in my place. It turns out that everything Tvetness had said was crap. Metcalfe detailed his explanation regarding the acquisition of the KEP and it was perfectly legal, and did not involve swindling some poor bereaving woman who thought he was a die-hard member of the Church.

Shortly after I emailed Tvetdness to inform him that Metcalfe denied everything he said. He seemed a bit taken back that I would dare bring it up to Metcalfe, but I don’t know why. After all, I requested help in the debate I was in and all Tvetdness had to offer was a bunch of slander. Do any of you think for a second that these false rumors were considered “disgusting” to any prominent LDS scholar on the e-list?

On another occasion I made another request on the e-list about Stephen Thompson and Charles Larson who both said some thing that contradicted Gee’s claims. This time Louis Midgley decided to email me a response. What damning evidence did he give me for my argument on ZLMB? He told me that “Chuck” Larson was a failed high school teacher who works as a security guard, and that Stephen Thompson cannot find a job anywhere in academia, but instead hides out in some small Florida town where he teaches at the high school level. He then told me to compare these credentials with the eminent John Gee whose Ph.D was given to him from Yale University.

That was the extent of his response. Seriously, that was it! It was if he expected me to just drink this up as a valid response. Why?

BECAUSE THIS IS THE NORM IN LDS APOLOGETICS!

Bill Hamblin’s “Metcalfe is Butthead” incident is not just an isolated case. It is just a rare case that got exposed. But the fact is this group of “scholars” is a bunch of vindictive jackasses who think they are above reproach. They are never held accountable for any of their slanders, their “disgusting” rumors, or their published errors.

The fact that people like Bokovoy and Peterson act all offended and get righteously indignant, just makes me want to laugh. And you should too.

Kevin,

Are you still a devout believing Mormon?

Response to Dan,

Having just, a couple of hours ago, returned from southern California, I now learn that a critic of the Church who goes under the pseudonyms "Kevin Graham" and "dartagnan" (among others)

As you have posted as fritz, freethinker, logic chopper, among others. Is there some kind of point to this?

has been busy stirring things up during the past few days and weeks

And weeks? I sent a flippin email. It wasn’t a process that took “weeks.” You are trying to act like I have been operating for some kind of organized slime campaign. I emailed Ritner to verify rumors that you had been passing around for five years. It was on a whim and took all of 26 seconds. Where is the crime? Am I responsible for whatever Ritner my say or do as a result? My inquiry was genuine, and to suggest that I have planned or “succeeded” in a goal to have you sued, is absurd, unfounded and quite frankly, smacks of cheap desperation tactics.

and that he may now have succeeded in provoking somebody into filing a lawsuit against me. How charming.

Yea, it was me who provoked Ritner, right? It had nothing to do with the fact that you and Gee, two professional scholars at BYU, were the ones responsible for this rumor. See how BYU professors absolutely refuse to be held accountable for anything they say? I am the bad guy now, as usual. They simply refuse to see it any other way, and now you are distraught over the prospect of a lawsuit, which means your disciples will naturally get pissed off at me!

It would be nice if certain folks could grasp the fact that these quarrels involve real people, with actual lives.

Last time I checked, Robert Ritner is a real person who has his own professional life, which is just as real as he is. I don’t think you were too concerned about that when you decided to pass around this credibility-damaging rumor.

I have, of course, slandered nobody.

Maybe, but I haven’t said you did. Ritner said you did. I report the facts, no matter how unpleasant they might be to you and your ilk.

I merely shared, in conversation here, a small portion of what I had been told and what I sincerely believed to be true and relevant, that I had no reason to question. I did so in defense of a friend.

Oh bull honkey. Your reiteration of this incident has been frequent and consistent over five year period. I know there are other examples, but these are the ones I could pull up. Please show me where you claim to have been passing along what he had been told. You make it clear that what you say is proved fact. You make it clear you have the inside scoop that none of the rest of us have:

It would be the same John Gee who, having suffered much at the hands of Robert Ritner (in ways that no doctoral candidate should have to), successfully petitioned his department to have Ritner replaced as his doctoral advisor, and who then, under the direction of the eminent Yale Egyptologist William Kelly Simpson, proceeded to earn a Ph.D. Yes, it would be that one… As I noted above, actually knowing something about the story helps. (11/20/02 11:38 am) ... John Gee was quite far into the writing of his dissertation (i.e., he had "completed a considerable amount of research") when Yale approved the switch from Robert Ritner to William Kelly Simpson…I know what I'm talking about. Do you? (11/20/02 1:24 pm)
http://p079.ezboard.com/Stephen-Thompso ... =249.topic

“As I've said, various substantive responses are in the works. Whether the personal side of this will ever come out is unknown to me. I wish it would, but I don't think that's my decision to make.” (Sep 29 2004, 01:26 PM) http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... topic=5150

“Perhaps you're unaware that Professor Gee (successfully) petitioned his department at Yale to have Professor Ritner replaced as chairman of his doctoral committee. Such requests are not commonly made. And they are not commonly granted. Do you think they're best buddies?” (Jun 10 2006, 04:56 PM)
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=15706


“Professor Ritner was once Professor Gee's dissertation chairman at Yale University, until he was removed from that position and replaced by another professor. There is a personal history here (of which I was aware as it played out, since Professor Gee had been a student of mine before he went off to graduate school at Berkeley and then Yale.” (Mar 22 2006, 08:43 PM) - http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=14257


“I also will not comment on his removal from my dissertation committee other than to note that it was the department's decision to do so. There is much more to the story than what Professor Ritner has chosen to tell.” (Mar 23 2006, 07:47 PM) http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=14257

“The fact is that Professor Gee went on to earn a doctorate from Yale in Egyptology after successfully petitioning for the removal of Professor Ritner, his appointed advisor, from his doctoral committee.” (Aug 2 2006, 10:45 AM)- http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=16868

If you check out the example from Mar 22, 2006 you’ll notice that you are not defending Gee from attacks. You brought it up because Ritner was brought up.

However, I learned very clearly, through my experience with the Rev. Kurt Van Gorden a few years ago, that the mere fact that a lawsuit may lack even the slightest trace of true merit will neither stop it from being filed nor prevent it from consuming hundreds of hours of a defendant's life.

Oh no, it looks like the hundreds of hours you spend on the internet are in danger. I’m sure you could make the sacrifice if you try hard enough.

Oh, well done, Mr. "Graham."

You made your bed Dan so don’t try to blame whatever woes you might have on me. I don't wish lawsuits on anyone, and if it makes you less nervous, I don't think Ritner is seriously considering one. But stop blaming me and take responsibility for once. I don’t blame you for the social backlash I have experienced from LDS, even though inheriting your consistent and vocal “moral outrage” seems to have been my worst crime for many people.

Kevin,

I've decided that you're right about my not knowing all the particulars of the history and modified the thread title here to be slightly less inflammatory.

How about a round of lawsuits for everybody!

Jersey Girl

Dr. Shades wrote:I don't have time right now, but I'll type up a detailed response later this evening.

Shades,

I know you're going to make the decision that you feel, one way or the other, is best. It's your board, you can do with it what you please and no one is in a position to tell you otherwise. But that won't stop me from commenting. ;-)

In my mind, if you allow private email or message content on this board you might as well invite Itchy to open up shop once again and have at it. If you want to open that door, that is certainly your choice but do so knowing that you also open the door for your posting community and all it's members.

I recall that one of your goals was to make this board open and inviting to folks from all sorts of backgrounds and affiliations, and especially to TBM's. If I were a TBM and looked at what's going on here, I'd hot foot it out of here so fast it'd make your head spin.

That's where I'm coming from and I look forward to see what you've decided. Tough decisions, I know...

Jersey Girl

Jersey Girl wrote:Shades,

Until you disallow the posting of emails and private messages on this board, what you've got here is a poisoned well. Daniel is exactly correct when he says that the words on these boards are generated by real people with real lives. You've got people here keeping dirt files on people and threatening to post. That's blackmail, Doc.

I truly don't see what Kevin did (viz., send an e-mail) as "keeping dirt files" on anyone. He merely copied & pasted quotes from other people that those people freely and voluntarily posted to the public Internet.

You've got people here cavalierly posting unverifiable emails in order to stir up controversy, the outcome of which can never be realized on a board like this.

They are verifiable. Kevin copied & pasted here the very quotes he copied & pasted in his e-mails, and kindly provided the URLs so we could see them for ourselves.

Not only that, but if we're all about verifying things, we can go the route Kevin did: Contact Dr. Ritner ourselves to see if Kevin is accurately representing their correspondence. Ritner's curriculum vitae page, listing his phone number, fax number, and e-mail address, is right here.

When you figure out the difference between Kevin Graham and Scratch, and the Z trolls and Mr. Itchy, would you be so kind as to let me know? Because I'm not seeing it.

Here is the difference: The ZLMB trolls and Mr. Itchy were dredging up personal information on my family and me. They posted my place of business, posted my wife's first name, posted a little on my political life (they got the district wrong), even dug up information about my hobbies, of all things (although they got the venue wrong), which even I didn't know was online! Thank God they didn't post my kids' schedules to make them targets for pedophiles.

Kevin, on the other hand, did nothing other than solicit verification for certain rumors which had been posted online in public message boards meant for public distribution. He didn't post any personal information whatsoever.

The fact that you can't see the stark, night-and-day difference is, to be candid, extremely baffling.

I'm asking you outright and in full public view to disallow the posting of email and private message content on this board. The board rules here tell us not to do anything stupid. Does that include screwing with people's personal and professional lives?

Legally, a PM or e-mail becomes the property of the recipient to do whatever he/she wishes with it. If the recipient chooses to share it, that's his/her prerogative.

And no, sharing such things does not "screw" with people's personal and professional lives. Something was merely brought to Ritner's attention that was already meant for public consumption anyway.

Here is the difference: The ZLMB trolls and Mr. Itchy were dredging up personal information on my family and me. They posted my place of business, posted my wife's first name, posted a little on my political life (they got the district wrong), even dug up information about my hobbies, of all things (although they got the venue wrong), which even I didn't know was online! Thank God they didn't post my kids' schedules to make them targets for pedophiles.

Kevin, on the other hand, did nothing other than solicit verification for certain rumors which had been posted online in public message boards meant for public distribution. He didn't post any personal information whatsoever.

The fact that you can't see the stark, night-and-day difference is, to be candid, extremely baffling.

Forgive my bluntness, Doc, or not. The only difference that I see is that when it's about you and your family, it's wrong. If it's about Daniel or Gee or Ritner or someone else, it's fair game and they can twist.

Jersey Girl

Jersey Girl wrote:Shades,

I know you're going to make the decision that you feel, one way or the other, is best. It's your board, you can do with it what you please and no one is in a position to tell you otherwise. But that won't stop me from commenting. ;-)

MormonDiscussions is not about stopping people from commenting (quite the opposite, in fact). Stopping people from commenting is MA&D's way of doing business, not ours.

In my mind, if you allow private email or message content on this board you might as well invite Itchy to open up shop once again and have at it. If you want to open that door, that is certainly your choice but do so knowing that you also open the door for your posting community and all it's members.

I think it's a tempest in a teacup. Mister Scratch threatened to post a PM you had sent him. I understand that that may be aggravating to you, but at the end of the day, he did not threaten to tell everyone your phone number, worksite, mother's maiden name, and Social Security Number, unlike Mr. Itchy and the ZLMB trolls.

I recall that one of your goals was to make this board open and inviting to folks from all sorts of backgrounds and affiliations, and especially to TBM's. If I were a TBM and looked at what's going on here, I'd hot foot it out of here so fast it'd make your head spin.

I really don't think anything's "going on here." No private, in real life information is being divulged by moderators or any one else. Nor am I reading anyone's PMs, unlike the MA&D moderators.

That's where I'm coming from and I look forward to see what you've decided. Tough decisions, I know...

Sometimes being a moderator also means being a peacemaker. As they say, you can please some of the people all of the time, and you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can never please all of the people all of the time.

I hope you can appreciate my situation.

I can't agree, Jersey. "Critics" like the unconventional Latter-day Saint Kevin Graham are real people as well, as are "critics" like Egyptologist Robert Ritner. If Ritner's name is going to misused on the Internet, he should know about it, and Kevin Graham isn't to blame for letting him know. The objectionable comments were made by Dan Peterson, not by Kevin Graham, and if Professor Peterson doesn't like the consequences of his posts, then it's up to him to change them. The offending of Robert Ritner was indeed "well done," but not by Kevin Graham, who only investigated and challenged the misrepresentations against him.

Don

[Edit: I decidedly do not wish ill on Dr. Peterson or anyone else involved with this discussion.

I don't claim to know the motivations of the various participants in this debacle. I'm willing to assume they're sincere and non-hostile.

I can't help but hope that the insanity let loose on at least boards of late by comments about personal history and motivation will serve as an effective cautionary tale for all of us in the future; but I hope these incidents themselves blow over quickly and with absolute minimal harm in their wake.]