Who is this "Malevolent Stalker" haunts DCP?

[_mbeesley]

How many of you folks who post material on the web critical of the LDS Church do so from your place of employment?

Do you do so while you are on the clock?

Do you use your company's resources to do so?

Would you then conclude that your company funds/directs/supervises your anti-Mormon activities?

Scratch's bruhaha about this whole topic is much ado about nothing.

[_mbeesley]

. . . I seem to distinctly recall DCP trying to claim that the Brethren had *zero* involvement with Mopologetics.

Several years ago, Gordon B. Hinckley invited FARMS to become an official organ of BYU. So although the Brethren might indeed have zero input to the actual text of Mopologetics, can it really be said that they have no involvement with it?

Well, before implying that such a claim is inaccuate, perhaps you would do well to first document the claim, and then deal with the actual claim itself.

Edited to add: I have run a search at MADB and there are zero incidents of Daniel Peterson using the word zero in any post.

[_solomarineris]

How many of you folks who post material on the web critical of the LDS Church do so from your place of employment?

Do you do so while you are on the clock?

Do you use your company's resources to do so?

Would you then conclude that your company funds/directs/supervises your anti-Mormon activities?

Scratch's bruhaha about this whole topic is much ado about nothing.

Dude....
Speak for yourself. I own my company. We have 6 other desktops, girls on them have extracuricullar activities,
I don't mind (none of them are anti's).
Schratch's Bruhaha maybe nothing to you but If I were Tithe paying member, I'd cringe thinking how my money is spent.

[_harmony]

It's high time that TBMs learned that the Church is paying money to defend itself against critics, and that the rank-and-file's tithing money is being used to do this.

Oh dear, Mr Scratch. You really are going to have to prove that one. How do you know tithing is spent on apologetics? I'd like to see evidence of that line item in the budget, especially since we're discussing "fundraisers" on the other thread, not tithing.

[_Mister Scratch]

It's high time that TBMs learned that the Church is paying money to defend itself against critics, and that the rank-and-file's tithing money is being used to do this.

Oh dear, Mr Scratch. You really are going to have to prove that one. How do you know tithing is spent on apologetics? I'd like to see evidence of that line item in the budget, especially since we're discussing "fundraisers" on the other thread, not tithing.

Lol. Well, the fundraiser's salary has to come from somewhere, right? ; ) Maybe the Brethren will re-open the books one of these days, and then we'll all know.

[_Mister Scratch]

. . . I seem to distinctly recall DCP trying to claim that the Brethren had *zero* involvement with Mopologetics.

Several years ago, Gordon B. Hinckley invited FARMS to become an official organ of BYU. So although the Brethren might indeed have zero input to the actual text of Mopologetics, can it really be said that they have no involvement with it?

Well, that's what I'd like to know. And, again, I'm basically working purely from memory here, since, as I've said, I cannot utilize the MAD search engine in order to confirm my recollections. Basically, I don't think we really know the full extent of the Brethren's involvement with apologetics, and I believe that efforts have been made to prevent people from knowing.

For example:

---Steve Benson stated that Dallin Oaks told him that the purpose of FARMS was to prevent the Church from being "outflanked" by critics. DCP has contested the veracity of this.
---Lots of effort has been made to convince people that no one gets paid to do apologetics. Well, this just isn't true.
---Effort has been made to create the impression that the Brethren don't really ever weigh in on apologetic matters. Is this true? I'm not sure, but see the next item:
---The First Presidency *revised* one of its statements (on the Hill Cumorah) in order to conform to the apologists' pet theory. Why did they do this, if there is a lot of separation between the Brethren and FARMS? DCP has avoided addressing the question. I'm not sure why.

[_Trevor]

Lol. Well, the fundraiser's salary has to come from somewhere, right? ; ) Maybe the Brethren will re-open the books one of these days, and then we'll all know.

It really is a silly request. The LDS Church is ultimately responsible for its own apologetics. What's the big deal?

[_Trevor]

As is his wont, Scratch misrepresents me in his paraphrase. This makes me an easier target.

by the way, Peterson, who are Scratch's acolytes? I am interesting in knowing, since you keep referring to them. Antishock? Who else? I wasn't aware that Scratch had acolytes.

[_RockHeaded]

ROLF, what difference does it make if the LDS church pays DCP or not? IMHO this just goes to show the extent that ant-mormons will go to try and criticize the LDS church. IT'S DUMB! Does anyone realize that these evidences, for which Daniel Peterson is part of discovering, are used by the LDS Church as a teaching tool for their current members? Does it really matter that DCP enjoys debating on the internet? The funny thing is I doubt if 90% of the anti Mormons on the internet could hold a good debate with DCP and I think that is why he is attacked on this message board so frequently.

RockHeaded

[_Trevor]

The funny thing is I doubt if 90% of the anti Mormons on the internet could hold a good debate with DCP and I think that is why he is attacked on this message board so frequently.

90%? Kinda low don't you think?