La Trahison Des Clercs in the Fulness of Times

[_Drifting]

You need to imagine yourself as Schryver to see the relativity, but get the shower ready first...

Yeah. I guess I just don't see it. Of course, I was never all that interested in Egyptology. The Book of Abraham isn't so much about Egypt anyway as it is about the West's fascination with Egypt, which you get in healthy doses beginning in Homer and then in Herodotus. Egypt has long been pegged as the ancient home of the mysteries, and it is not surprising that Mormonism continues in the same vein. I think it is all very inspiring and interesting, but it does not require a degree in Egyptology to appreciate. In any case, I don't envy Gee. I would not want to be him, and I can't imagine others aspiring to the same. But, I really don't want to.

I was wandering around the Museums in London with the family and we ended up in the Egyptian exhibition (which was brilliant). As we walked past the papyri I said "hey look, the Book of Abraham". The family stayed and read the legend explaining it as the Book of the Dead for quite a while.

[_Droopy]

Exactly correct.

What I find interesting about this brief encounter is that it represents what seems to have become a new standard operating procedure of apostates and anti-Mormons. If anyone dares to criticize them, publish a negative review, respond to their claims, or stand up to their attacks against the church and its members, the new standard apostate tactic is to relentlessly defame that person on their message boards, and to send defamatory letters to general authorities, work supervisors, editors, journalists–anyone who might listen to them. Their clear goal in this matter is to silence their critics by whatever means possible.

These letters are always anonymous and/or secret. Their victim rarely knows what is said about him by the apostates. The victim likewise has no chance to respond to the defamation. The apostates and anti-Mormons don’t, in fact want to engage the issues and ideas of their critics; their goal is to suppress and censor the publication of ideas they dislike, while defaming the authors. Indeed, the last thing they want is for the issues discussed openly and publicly in the marketplace of ideas. They rarely respond to the actual arguments; instead they claim their critics are nothing more than ad hominem bullies and liars.

They continue to do this because they believe these tactics have been successful in the past year. They have done it to Will Schryver, Greg Smith, Dan Peterson, and are now trying it on me. Undoubtedly anyone else who dares criticize them will be subjected to similar tactics in the future, because the apostates believe their tactics work. And perhaps they do.

On the other hand, I have obviously been critical of Jerry Bradford’s activities at the Maxwell Institute. However, I published my criticisms under my own name in a public forum, to which Bradford has had a full opportunity to respond if he’d like. I sent no letters to Bradford’s superiors at work, nor to any general authorities. I would never think of doing so. This simply represents a serious difference of opinion regarding the policies of the Maxwell Institute, playing out as an extended open public rational discourse and argument, not secret attempts at censorship and defamation.

My concern is not about public criticism of me by apostates and anti-Mormons. That is an integral part of the academic enterprise. The problem is the secret (and often anonymous) defamation of people through poison pen letters sent to general authorities, work supervisors, or journalists designed to suppress debate and censor and silence people who disagree with and criticize the apostates. In my opinion, these practices need to be publicly exposed and vigorously opposed.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Exactly correct.

Do you not realize that MsJack's in real life identity is well known? The Schryver situation arose not out of anonymous poison pen letters but out of an open letter under her real name from her blog? You can't be this stupid, can you?

[_Droopy]

You know, come to think of it, all this really is is the transference of the "politics of personal destruction" from the secular political Left to the apostate anti-Mormon Internet world and the theological/cultural issues of interest, regarding the Church, to this spcific group.

Indeed, the coincidence of both the secular Left and anti-Mormon apostasy, at least when it is public and overt (for all intents interchangeable, if MDB is any indication), has long been noted.

[_Kishkumen]

Both Jack and John Dehlin did what they did very publicly. Peterson's misrepresentation of the entire affair is puerile, paranoid, and fallacious. Besides, who says that anyone has to sit still while he publishes smear about them from BYU campus? Furthermore, just how is his position as the dismissed editor of the Review equivalent to John's as the prospective target of one of his smear campaigns?

What a jerk.

[_Droopy]

Do you not realize that MsJack's in real life identity is well known? The Schryver situation arose not out of anonymous poison pen letters but out of an open letter under her real name from her blog? You can't be this stupid, can you?

Look, Bluff, just keep lying for the cause. As the song says, "you can justify it in the end." Both Will and Hamblin, as well as others, are well aware that Jack's initiation of the "misogyny" meme was only the beginning of a under-the-radar smear campaign that was done out of public view.

Its pretty much out in the open now, as far as the increasing number of victims who have come under the withering defamatory assaults of the posse, and have first hand knowledge of the dynamics involved, have now attested.

Who am I going to believe, MSJack? You? Scratch? or Will, Peterson, Hamblin et al?

That's an easy one.

Time will be the great judge. You Morlocks will eventually be exposed, one way or another, for what you are, and what you've done, and what you're agenda is, by and by.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Both Jack and John Dehlin did what they did very publicly. Peterson's misrepresentation of the entire affair is puerile, paranoid, and fallacious. Besides, who says that anyone has to sit still while he publishes smear about them from BYU campus? Furthermore, just how is his position as the dismissed editor of the Review equivalent to John's as the prospective target of one of his smear campaigns?

What a jerk.

Smearing is OK if you're a mopologist or a conservative. See Droopy's post just above yours.

[_Darth J]

Both Will and Hamblin, as well as others, are well aware that Jack's initiation of the "misogyny" meme was only the beginning of a under-the-radar smear campaign that was done out of public view.

VS.

Not a shred of evidence it ever happened, in Joseph's case. You need evidence, for these kinds of claims, Drifting (facts would even be better). viewtopic.php?f=1&t=25123&start=105

[Guest]

You Morlocks will eventually be exposed, one way or another, for what you are, and what you've done, and what you're agenda is, by and by....

You are a paranoid fantasist. What you mischaracterize as a conspiracy was nothing more or less than the spontaneous and uncoordinated consensus of individual minds that all independently reached the conclusion over time that the FARMS bunch had become a den of arrogant thugs who were actually doing harm to members of the Church the thugs claimed to be defending.

How did these minds reach such a conclusion? Because it was true.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Look, Bluff, just keep lying for the cause. As the song says, "you can justify it in the end." Both Will and Hamblin, as well as others, are well aware that Jack's initiation of the "misogyny" meme was only the beginning of a under-the-radar smear campaign that was done out of public view.

And your evidence for this is what? Who do you think was involved and why?

Its pretty much out in the open now, as far as the increasing number of victims who have come under the withering defamatory assaults of the posse, and have first hand knowledge of the dynamics involved, have now attested.

Who am I going to believe, MSJack? You? Scratch? or Will, Peterson, Hamblin et al?

Will is a habitual liar. Peterson and Hamblin and Scratch I don't know. I know MsJack well enough to know that Will is wrong about her being anti-Mormon. It's a ridiculous assertion and his denials of his own words show him to be a liar.

That's an easy one.

I knew you'd choose the proven liar. I won't.

Time will be the great judge. You Morlocks will eventually be exposed, one way or another, for what you are, and what you've done, and what you're agenda is, by and by.

I couldn't care less about being "exposed" for an agenda I don't have and a "conspiracy" I had nothing to do with, your paranoid fantasies notwithstanding. Believe what you want Loran. You boys act like a junior-high clique dissing the popular kids. That isn't something I aspire to.