Book of Mormon apologetic of last resort?

[_Daniel Peterson]

And the assumption is what? That the resignation reflected badly on the case for the Book of Abraham? Or that Ritner resigned?

One of those, maybe.

Of course, this is exactly what I was referring to earlier. It plays to your advantage to leave enough room for people to believe that Prof. Ritner was somehow in the wrong.

A possibility that, of course, is simply inconceivable and obviously absurd.

I would think that, for the sake of Book of Abraham apologetics, that you'd want to clear the air.

That would be my preference, yes.

But there was mention of a lawsuit roughly a year or so ago.

Having been baselessly sued by a California-based anti-Mormon a number of years back, I learned that a lawsuit doesn't have to have any merit in order to cost large sums of money and considerable time -- my own tenure as a defendant lasted roughly two years until the judge threw the complaint against me out, "with prejudice" -- and I'm disinclined to leave myself needlessly vulnerable to another one. Not even for your entertainment.

[_beastie]

Oh, my goodness. I had forgotten how entertaining that thread was. For those not interested in reading the entire thread, the topic was about whether or not the church encourages or discourages believing spouses from divorcing spouses who no longer believe in the church. Believers were already tying themselves in knots, some claiming the church has never, and would never, encourage a believing spouse to divorce a nonbelieving spouse, while other believers helpfully offered up their opinions that divorce would actually be totally justified in that scenario, anyway. But then Scott and Pahoran had to ratchet up the hyperbole by claiming that spouses who were perfectly decent spouses as believers turned into abusive monsters after leaving the church. Of course, they were called to provide evidence of this assertion, and some of us questioned how people like Scott and Pahoran would have been privy to that sort of reliable marital information, and here is what Pahoran asserted, in response to this post of mine:

My post as 7o9

It didn't occur to me that you were making such a categoric statement based on anything less than personal associations with both parties. I guess I gave you too much credit.

So just what, then, are you basing this categoric statement on? What are your sources of information, if not the parties involved? And just how many cases are you so knowledgeable of that you feel comfortable making this categoric assumption?

Pahoran’s reply:

I guess you really think you got me that time, don't you?

Sorry to burst your bubble, but when apostates decide to malign the Church by falsely accusing it of breaking up their marriages, they do not usually confine their slanders to confidential disclosures that I would only learn if I were the close personal confidant of each one of them. Rather, they tend to broadcast these accusations quite promiscuously. Ed Decker is a rather well-known case in point--he made this accusation almost as promiscuously as he lived his personal life. However, his much-maligned ex-wife reports that her bishop kept encouraging her to forgive him and stick by him through all his string of affairs, and even after he fell away from the Church. Which not only refutes Ed, but it has added credibility (not that it needs it--Ed has negative credibility, which means that his disagreeing with any assertion adds weight to the claim that it is true) because it is consistent with the clear, unequivocal and emphatic policy of the Church.

But I do not rest my categorical statement upon that case alone. I know of many others. One occurred in my own family. Another occurred in a family I home-taught. Still another happened in a matter where I sat on the disciplinary council. One rather notorious case happened when I lived in Australia, wherein the apostate husband murdered his wife and children, then burned the house down with them in it. In that particular case, the bishop in question did in fact finally advise the wife to leave her increasingly abusive husband, but she didn't move quickly enough.

And there are others as well. But I'm sure that won't deter you from making some under-the-radar slur against my veracity. After all, why stop such an ingrained habit now?

I was skeptical:

Aside from the well known and much beloved Ed Decker story, none of these four examples sound like they were cases where the apostates were broadcasting their claims. Were they writing books like Ed Decker? How do you know their side of the story, if, as you say, you had no personal associations with them in the aspect of them confiding their side of the story to you? Or are you now stating that they did, indeed, tell you their side of the story? And just how do you define your last, very open ended "miserable anti Mormon tyrant"? And do you know of any cases wherein the believing LDS was the more guilty party in the divorce?

by the way, do you have any links to the press coverage of the murderous apostate husband? How long ago was this? I'd like to read more about it.

And, by the way, I have no doubt you absolutely believe everything you say. But, after having read your posts since being on ZLMB, I also believe you have one of the strongest cases of anti exmormon bias I've ever seen, and my opinion is that it strongly colors your perceptions in regards to any issue involving exmormons.

Pahoran did not provide more details on the murder case, but Zoobie helpfully emailed me the articles. I shared the details, and here are some particularly pertinent quotes (remember, Pahoran offered this case as an example proving that exmormons who blame the church for their divorce were, in his experience, always abusive and/or unfaithful and the real cause of the divorce):

Bishop Tempany said Manna had been ex-communicated from the Mormon church about 12 months ago for "reputed child and wife abuse".


Bishop Tempany said Manna had been in psychiatric hospitals and had become violent and abusive since he stopped taking medication for schizophrenia 12 months ago.

"And he used the Mormon religion to have power over his wife and children, using the teachings to tell them how they should live their lives.

"A lot of his friends were Arabs. He mixed with the type of men that would keep their wives under the thumb."

MR MANNA had written scriptures on the walls of the house and believed he played a pivotal role in world affairs.

Mr Jeffrey Tempany, a senior member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, also known as the Mormon church, said Mr Manna had been excommunicated for "conduct unbecoming". "He was isolating his family from society," he said.

"Gino ruled his family in a cruel patriarchal manner.

My comments about Pahoran’s use of this as an example:

Aside from that, it is clear to me that Pahoran was extremely misleading in using this as an example of how
apostates often blame the church for their divorces, but in reality are adulterers, abusers, or tyrannical. This example is so clearly inappropriate for the point Pahoran was using it for that I would be seriously skeptical of any other examples Pahoran may offer. Note that:

1) Manna was not an apostate. He was excommunicated for abuse.

2) Manna continued to incorporate elements of Mormonism in his delusions.

3) Manna apparently, at least to some degree, continued to attend church after his excommunication.

4) The only person who appeared to link Mormonism to Mannas disorder was his brother. Manna himself appeared to believe the church was trying to take his home from him. (if Pahoran is correct, and the bishop finally did advise her to leave, that is probably the source of that comment)

One can only imagine Pahorans comments if an exmormon used a similarily flawed example to prove something derogatory about LDS. One doesn't have to imagine, go look at the case he tried to build against Analytics on far less evidence.

What is so bizarre about the thread is that Pahoran continued to declare victory. Aside from that, it is notable that no believers objected to his behavior on the thread.

Anyway, these several examples EA and I have provided are more than adequate to demonstrate that Pahoran’s behavior towards critics is atrocious, and, based on my experience, far worse than Kevin (who usually just resorts to calling people idiots).

[_dartagnan]

Just for the record: I've expressly rejected such thinking, here and elsewhere, on several occasions...I know people who, in my opinion, have left the Church because of sin; I know people who have not. (As I've explicitly said, here and elsewhere, several times.)

Well, it sure is interesting how your tone completely changes when you're in a crowd of Mormons. I found the thread in question, and this is what you said in a thread I started, when beowulf went on a rant and stated quite explicitly that nobody ever leaves the Church because of "knowledge" gained. He went on and on with "stories" about how apostasy is always a result of sin. - http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... c=6804&hl=

Here is your commentary, emphasis mine:

From the perspective of eternity, there can be no legitimate reason for leaving the Church of God or for turning one's back upon God's revealed truth and will. Such a decision is simply and always wrong.

However, our knowledge here is limited, fragmentary, imperfect, and distorted. So it's possible that one can leave the Church for reasons that, given the flawed nature of our knowledge in mortality, genuinely appear to be good and sufficient. It's a matter of our perceptions.

But our perceptions are always colored by our own individual personal history, character, knowledge, ignorance, desires, mental and emotional health, ambitions, etc. So no decision to accept the gospel or to reject it is likely to be purely rational, uncolored by "personal" factors.

We can trust that God knows this and appreciates it far better than we do, and that, in his mercy, he will take such factors into account. Those who have sincerely done their best will, I believe, be blessed for it, even if they took mistaken detours. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to tempt God. And those who have lived carelessly, heedlessly, and cynically, are also living recklessly.

Having said all of this, I add for the record that my experience with friends, relatives, and acquaintances who have left the Church has been very similar to Beowulf's. I'm not sure if I know of a single case of purely intellectual apostasy.

You don't say people can and do leave the Church for legitimate reasons, you only said that these reasons might "appear" to be legitimate. Why? Because, the "flawed nature" of "our knowledge here is limited, fragmentary, imperfect, and distorted." This is a far cry different from granting that some people leave the faith for legitimate reasons. You didn't raise even a pinky to correct Beowulf's bigoted rant. But among ex-Mormons here, you assure us that you have "always" maintained the position that not all ex-Mormons leave due to sin. Yet, in the thread at MADB you said you didn't know of one single example of intellectual apostasy.

And for you to sit there and insist this attitude doesn't resonate with LDS in general, makes me wonder what planet you've been living on. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism speaks on apostasy, and of course, it also describes the frequent cause as some sinful act that the person didn't want to repent of.

Anyway, I complained to Dan for not responding to Beowulf's bigotry. His response was "I don't read all posts on all threads, Kevin. And I comment on far fewer than I read." What the hell? He just commented on Beowulf's post.
To further the subject about the insanity of MADB moderation...

Two years ago someone at MADB started a thread discussing whether or not Muhammed was a real prophet of God. Dan presented statemenst from LDS leadership with respect to Muhammed. I simply added some context by providing further commentary by some of the earliest LDS leaders, including Joseph Smith, none of whom felt Muhammed was inspired of much of anything.

After presenting a list of LDS statements unfavorable towards Islam and Muhammed, I said "But I agree with Dan. The more recent LDS comments about Muhammed and Islam are far more cautious; or some might say politically correct." Dan tried to have a pissing contest with me on the matter, insisting his list of LDS commentators was longer and more recent.

I responded:

I'm bowing out of this, but just wanted to say that I was only offering a plausible explanation as to why the opinions and attitudes in the Church have changed on the subject; and they have changed dramatically. If we're going to defer to Church authorities to teach us on the subject, we should be aware of the earliest opinions of Church leaders, whether they were complaisant attitudes or not.

I do not accept claims just because someone has authority over me. All claims need to be tested, and that is what I did.

I do not accuse Dan of "dismissing" Joseph Smith or Orson Pratt because he defers to the opinions of more recent leaders, and I think I deserve the same courtesy.

Dan wouldn't let it go, continued to misrepresent me, and then in came the moderators. It is truly a hilarious spectacle. I highly recommend it for anyone inclined to buy into this nonsense that I was treated roughly at FAIR because of my "attitude." Here it is: http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=17084

During that same month I offered a critique of Dan's argument regarding Asherah in Nephi. http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 6867&st=20

He didn't like that either, and I invite everyuone to read through this exchange and tell me who was getting hissy and personal.

A few months later I was posting as dartagnan in a thread the converts role, from a sociological perspective. I mentioned an email that I had received from a prominent sociologist. Juliann flipped out and got the moderators to threaten me. They said I had to share that email with the forum or else they would ban me. Hilarious. Read it all. You just can't make this stuff up.
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=20762

[_dartagnan]

There was a guy who posted briefly on my old forum named Thunderchops. Some of you might remember him, or maybe his avatar. It was a photo of him and his huge sideburns. Anyway, he told the forum that Pahoran once called his wife a whore in the ZLMB chatroom. He said that if given the chance, he would beat the snopt out of him if he ever met him.

Now I know why [deleted] is weary about his real name being thrown about.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I expect that at least a few here will be able to recognize that intellectual and purely intellectual are not synonyms.

[_dartagnan]

LOL... Ritnergate...

Almost forgot about that one. Dan had a dramatic meltdown and told everyone at FAIR I was endangering the inheritance of his children. The issue of his ongoing libel against Ritner was not up for discussion. Not at FAIR anyway. Instead I was the bad guy. Bokovoy got in on the action too and started attacking me as a diversion.

Yes, there are plenty of incidents that might explain Dan's distate for me, but unfortunately, the reasons he gives don't seem to be the most likely explanations. As long as he rubs elbows with people like Russel "your wife is a whore" McGregor, John "Metcalfe swindled a bereaved widow" Tvetdnes, and Bill "you're Butthead" Hamblin, he is really in no position to be complaining about my "unpleasant attitude."

[_Daniel Peterson]

Have a great day, Kevin.

[_dartagnan]

I expect that at least a few here will be able to recognize that intellectual and purely intellectual are not synonyms.

Dan you just said that you explicitly disgareed with the LDS attitude to which I referred. You said you had always done this on many occassions.

Well, when???

If ever there were a time appropriate for such an expression, that was it. But what did you do in this instance? You encouraged Beowulf to continue with his irrational generalizations by essentially saying, "Yeah that has been my experience too."

You always seem to play to your audience. Heck, the best discussions you and I have had on Islam were in private email because you had no audience. So there was no need for you to get indignant at what I said. You even said I made some "good points", which left me banging my head wondering, "how come you never say this at MADB"?

Well, I can only assume it is because you don't want anyone to know you agree with much of what I have said on the subject.

[_EAllusion]

Beastie -

I can't divulge my secrets. :p

I'm in that thread. There was an idea floating about that apostacizing in an LDS marriage is an act of betrayal comparable to adultry. I replied.

The fun stuff is over Pahoran asserting:

Speaking from my own experience, I have known a number of disgruntled apostates who have claimed that the Church "broke up" their marriages. In many of those cases I have obtained reliable information that it was they who broke up their marriages by their own abusive and/or unfaithful behaviour. Sometimes I have had first-hand knowledge of the fact; and in every case, their own spiteful and abusive attitude towards the Church of Jesus Christ has provided persuasive evidence that for a believing Latter-day Saint, being forced to live with them would be hell on earth.

....


My experience is that the person telling the pack of lies that "the Church broke up my marriage (sob)" either has committed adultery, was abusive or is a miserable anti-mormon tyrant.

If I was enterprising, I'd just compile a 20-30 of Pahoran's vicious insults in quotes and post them. Instead, I'll probably just occasionally link an example of him being out of line. Still, the one that got me the most was accusing John Corrill of projecting pedophile fantasies.

[_beastie]

If I was enterprising, I'd just compile a 20-30 of Pahoran's vicious insults in quotes and post them. Instead, I'll probably just occasionally link an example of him being out of line. Still, the one that got me the most was accusing John Corrill of projecting pedophile fantasies.

Yeah, he jumped the shark with that one, along with accusing analytics of approving of murdering Mormons. John Corrill was a very mild-mannered poster, whose main criticism was polygamy, which he clearly loathed.

Despite my jaded cynical attitude towards Mormon/exmormon interactions, I'm still able to be a bit shocked that so few believers ever objected to Pahoran's tactics.