John Tvedtnes: Foul-mouthed Hatchet Man?

[_Daniel Peterson]

According to Kevin Graham, J. Tvedtnes was responsible for circulating a vicious rumor that Brent Metcalfe has somehow "tricked" Steve Christensens's [sp?] widow into forking over key historical documents. It is precisely analogous to the disgusting rumors you have helped to circulate about Mike Quinn.

In other words, it didn't happen.

So why on earth did you bring it up?

Then what do you make of the appointment of Tvedtnes to the status of "associate"?

Nothing much.

I know nothing about it, and I don't particularly care.

Ask the people who run SHIELDS.

Well, then, I suppose it's mere coincidence that all of your most aggressive, sophomoric antics turn up on SHIELDS.

Pure happy chance!

Do you consider Tvedtnes to be an important figure within LDS apologetics?

Reasonably so.

[_Mister Scratch]

According to Kevin Graham, J. Tvedtnes was responsible for circulating a vicious rumor that Brent Metcalfe has somehow "tricked" Steve Christensens's [sp?] widow into forking over key historical documents. It is precisely analogous to the disgusting rumors you have helped to circulate about Mike Quinn.

In other words, it didn't happen.

So why on earth did you bring it up?

Kevin brought it up. Are you accusing him of lying?

Then what do you make of the appointment of Tvedtnes to the status of "associate"?

Nothing much.

I know nothing about it, and I don't particularly care.

I thought you took "apologetics very seriously"? I guess SHIELDS doesn't factor into that maxim, eh?

Do you consider Tvedtnes to be an important figure within LDS apologetics?

Reasonably so.

Ouch! That seems a bit of a back-handed compliment, no? I mean, the guy used to draw a paycheck from FARMS for doing apologetics full time.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Kevin brought it up. Are you accusing him of lying?

No. Such accusations are your specialty, not mine.

Still, when you described the Tvedtnes tale as "precisely analogous to the disgusting rumors [I] have helped to circulate about Mike Quinn," it was only natural for me to conclude that, like my supposed campaign against Quinn, the Tvedtnes tale is pure fiction.

Are you trying to suggest that it's not?

I thought you took "apologetics very seriously"? I guess SHIELDS doesn't factor into that maxim, eh?

Taking apologetics seriously doesn't -- brace yourself -- mean compiling creepy "dossiers" on apologists and apologetic organizations.

Ouch! That seems a bit of a back-handed compliment, no?

No.

I mean, the guy used to draw a paycheck from FARMS for doing apologetics full time.

No.

[_Mister Scratch]

Kevin brought it up. Are you accusing him of lying?

No. Such accusations are your specialty, not mine.

Still, when you described the Tvedtnes tale as "precisely analogous to the disgusting rumors have helped to circulate about Mike Quinn," it was only natural for me to conclude that, like my supposed campaign against Quinn, the Tvedtnes tale is pure fiction.

Are you trying to suggest that it's not?

That's correct, as you perfectly well know. According to Kevin Graham, Tvedtnes *did* circulate the rumor that Brent Metcalfe had unscrupulously "tricked" Steve Christenson's widow into forking over critical historical materials.

Likewise, I have seen you spread the rumor that Quinn's sexual orientation was "known to his then-Stake President," with the clear intent to tarnish the man's character. Additionally, you have repeatedly characterized his historical writing as "untrustworthy."

I thought you took "apologetics very seriously"? I guess SHIELDS doesn't factor into that maxim, eh?

Taking apologetics seriously doesn't -- brace yourself -- mean compiling creepy "dossiers" on apologists and apologetic organizations.

Wow, that's a pretty lame attempt at a red herring, Dr. P., even for you. And anyways, SHIELDS [i]does compile "creepy dossiers"!

I mean, the guy used to draw a paycheck from FARMS for doing apologetics full time.

No.

Then what was FARMS paying him to do? Play tiddlywinks?

[_Daniel Peterson]

That's correct, as you perfectly well know. According to Kevin Graham, Tvedtnes *did* circulate the rumor that Brent Metcalfe had unscrupulously "tricked" Steve Christenson's widow into forking over critical historical materials.

I know nothing about this. If you wish to speak with John Tvedtnes about it, I suggest that you contact him.

Likewise, I have seen you spread the rumor that Quinn's sexual orientation was "known to his then-Stake President," with the clear intent to tarnish the man's character.

My understanding is that Quinn's sexual orientation was known to his stake president, as well as to many others both in and out of the Church.

As for my supposedly "clear intent to tarnish the man's character" by means of this fact, I've denied any such intent 1087 times. Or perhaps 1088 times. (I've lost count.)

I deny it again.

That's 1088 times. Or possibly 1089.

Must destroy Tokyo. Unleash giant radioactive lizard monsters. Smash skyscrapers. Destroy power lines. Crunch jet fighter planes with mighty reptilian paws. Shut down the shipping lanes. Destruction! Desolation! Total domination! Mwahahahaha! Then I shall create my own Capital One credit card, with kittens on it!

Additionally, you have repeatedly characterized his historical writing as "untrustworthy."

On some matters, it demonstrably (and demonstratedly) is.

Demonstrating and reaching such verdicts is, when necessary, the appropriate task of historiographical critiques and reviews. If you disagree, the proper way of disagreeing is by showing that the critic's or reviewer's criticisms are mistaken, not by attempting to criminalize the act of writing a book review or by denouncing historians who disagree as "smear" artists.

Wow, that's a pretty lame attempt at a red herring, Dr. P., even for you.

We disagree.

Stunning.

And anyways, SHIELDS does compile "creepy dossiers"!

No it doesn't.

Then what was FARMS paying him to do? Play tiddlywinks?

If you would like to see a detailed breakdown of John Tvedtnes's assignments at the Maxwell Institute, I suggest that you contact him and ask him for a report.

[_cksalmon]

I'm aware neither of "SHIELDS's very badly damaged reputation" nor of "an attempt to restore some credibility" to it.

I'm not sure it's possible to go from essentially no reputation at all to one that is "damaged."

On the other hand, SHIELDS, while not having a damaged reputation in my mind, simply has an extremely negative one.

I'm also not sure how Tvetnes might possibly be seen as endeavoring to "restore some credibility" to a hack-job site like SHIELDS, which, as far as I can discover, never had any sort of credibility to begin with--outside its presumed minimal readership, which, given the amount of times I've ever seen faithful LDS reference SHIELDS unbidden (0), I would assume is still fairly minimal.

Doug Marshall (apparently no longer even a member of the Church) and Doug Yancey's main target in starting the website was, all of things, UMI (my old stomping grounds). That they would even have bothered with UMI is evidence of the low-brow, off-the-radar nature of SHIELDS.

(I've never known UMI to publish any truly significant LDS-related research--not even, of course, when I edited The Evangel.)

In targeting the "worst of the anti-Mormon web," it seems, SHIELDS long ago decided to fight the worst sort of fire with its own antipodal flames.

cks

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'm not sure it's possible to go from essentially no reputation at all to one that is "damaged."

On the other hand, SHIELDS, while not having a damaged reputation in my mind, simply has an extremely negative one.

I'm also not sure how Tvetnes might possibly be seen as endeavoring to "restore some credibility" to a hack-job site like SHIELDS, which, as far as I can discover, never had any sort of credibility to begin with

Here, for anybody who might want to take a look at this evil and worthless site, is SHIELDS's URL:

http://www.shields-research.org/

Personally, I think the "Palmyra Project" is enough, by itself, to make the SHIELDS site valuable.

[_Gadianton]

Wow CK, I'm going to have to read a little about the UMI. It sounds like your outreach has seen some tough times from the dominant religion of the valley. I could tell you about the time when I was a kid, and all the Mormon kids on the street destroyed a cross that the only two Catholic kids on the block were making for their mom but...

See, it's ok for Mormons to put missionaries in the middle of every city on earth no matter what the religious persuasion, but if someone knocks on doors in Utah, oh no! They're nothing but anti-Mormons!!

Ok Ok, I know what they're going to say. If your mission operated without ever mentioning the word "Mormon" then it would be ok. If you guys just went around and "positively" offered the principles of your faith, then they'd accept that.

Well, they wouldn't.

But, the fact of the matter is, while I think Mormons have better PR going for them than JW's lets say, because they are supposed to avoid confrontations, Mormons have it easy because they don't have to talk theology, really, they don't have to present any kind of argument, all they have to do is say, "here is Book of Mormon, if it's true, we're true".

But how on earth could someone who is a Christian, for whom ceratin theological aspects founded in the Bible are of upmost importance approach a Mormon without ever critiquing Mormon theology? There just isn't a way to do it.

The only group I know who can proselyte to Mormons the same way, roughly, that Mormons can proselyte to Christians in the totally "positive" "let's add unto what you have" manner, are the various "sealed portion" groups out there who can ask Mormons to pray about the sealed portion.

And do you know how apologists treat the people who positively "add unto" the Mormon scripture the same way the Mormons "add unto" the Bible? Worse, and more disrespectful than they do born-again Christians who "attack" them.

Rest assured CK, Mormons, and especially Mormon apologists, are very narrow and vindictive people on the whole. However you present your case, if there is even an annoyance, let alone a serious possibility that they might lose a member, proselyting to a Mormon is unwelcome. Period.

[_cksalmon]

the above post

I'm not sure the denizens here actually needed the URL, but indeed, there it is in your above post, Dr. Peterson.

My taste in humor tends toward the low-brow, unfortunately; so, I really appreciate how the domain name incorporates the word "research."

That happens to be my favorite part.

Enjoy, all!

cks

[_Daniel Peterson]

Rest assured CK, Mormons, and especially Mormon apologists, are very narrow and vindictive people on the whole.

Marilyn Arnold, David O. McKay, Warner Woodworth, Terryl Givens, Gordon B. Hinckley, Neal Maxwell, Leonard Arrington, Milton Backman, Gladys Knight, Hugh B. Brown, Richard Scott, Eugene England, Stephen Robinson, James Allen, my wife -- very narrow and vindictive people.

And Hugh Nibley, Truman Madsen, David Paulsen, Jack Welch, Blake Ostler, Kevin Barney, Brant Gardner, Richard Anderson, and Kent Brown? Even narrower. Even more vindictive.

Horrible people. Almost all of them, if not all of them.