From My Informant: DCP & Schryver Ordered to Stand Down

[_Blixa]

Well it is what you believe, you just didn't like the snarky way he described it.

Acutually, it is inaccurate in two ways.

1) All Day Long. No.

2) Said in a way to convey a message about the attitude of it which it doesn't exist

The snarky comments read between the lines are considered inaccuracies alongside with the actual statements in my mind.

Apparently, liz, a believing Mormon, disagrees.

I don't disagree that Cam meant his phrase to be offensive, but that doesn't make the what he was responding to--Mormon doctrine of eternal progression and celestial polygamy--invalid.

And if it is wrong, then it needs to argued, not just dismissed. I would expect someone who had spent at great deal of time thinking about these things to be at least able to offer up some examples, again, like liz does...

[_Darth J]

Like the lawyers on this board so often say that they do not compose posts for legal audiences, I do not write academic journal-ready opening posts, and, from what I've seen neither do you.

I said that I do not write things on this board as if they were legal briefs, and it was in the context of something that had nothing at all to do with law (my review of "Truth Restored").

And while we're dwelling on Simon Belmont's latest excuse, let's take a look back at his previous demands that people engage in a "scholarly discussion"

Please provide sources for your claims, or state that they your opinion. Unsubstantiated claims have no place in scholarly discussion.

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... n+#p360834

Unsubstantiated claims have no place in scholarly discussion.

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... n+#p359656

Unsubstantiated claims have no place in scholarly discussion.

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... n+#p359221

Unsubstantiated claims have no place in scholarly discussion.

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... n+#p358790

Unsubstantiated claims have no place in scholarly discussion.

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... n+#p358784

Unsubstantiated claims have no place in scholarly discussion.

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... n+#p358714

Unsubstantiated claims have no place in scholarly discussion.

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... n+#p358488

[_Simon Belmont]

Where did I say that I thought it "was an actual, sit-down-together meeting concerning FAIR."? Is that really what I said, Simon? Or was I speculating?

I thought you'd never ask:

This afternoon, as I was perusing the aptly named MADboard (since I find it genuinely psychologically fascinating), I noticed something extraordinarily odd. It was a post from--of all people--Beastie:

So how did your meeting with Elder Oaks go?

Now, I was very confused by this. Why would Scott Gordon be meeting with Elder Oaks? After all, as DCP helpfully points out in his OP,

FAIR has been ordered by the "Packer Faction" to turn "Chapel Mormon," or some such nonsense. (emp. mine)

Even more peculiar was a post, rather out of the blue, from Scott Lloyd:

(link to the Wikipedia article on "Loaded Question")

I wondered: Why would Scott post this? What on earth is going on here?

These strange posts sent me on what I might as well call a "sojourn," or a "research expedition." Indeed, after having consulted with a variety of informants, I have come to the conclusion that, yes, Scott Gordon, President of FAIR, did indeed meet with Elder Oaks recently. The evidence is here: (Link to Redding California Stake Home Page).

You'll notice an announcement at the right-hand side of the page:

Stake Conference Held at Redding Stake Center with Elder Dallin H Oaks and Elder John Dalton

It just so happens that Scott Gordon, President of FAIR, is a very prominent member in the Redding, CA Stake (as he has openly said many times, including, If I recall correctly, on his BlackLDS website bio). After a bit of digging, I have discovered that, in fact, it was not the "Packer Faction" who delivered the "bad news" to the FAIR President, as DCP suggested. Rather, it was Elder Dallin Oaks himself who was dispatched to tell FAIR to "tone it down." Thus, it was the "friend" of the apologists who was forced to deliver the bad news. I do not know what he said, exactly, but I feel rather confident in saying that he did indeed meet with Bro. Gordon. Scott can feel free to confirm or deny these allegations.

I have to admit that I was rather blown away by the specificity of "intel" that I was able to obtain on this. According to one source, Elder Oaks actually re-arranged his schedule slightly so as to turn up at the Redding Stake Conference precisely at this time. Consider that Elder Oaks could have equally done something vis-à-vis Haiti, or in response to the court case dealing with same-sex marriage....

Regardless, I find that I am every bit as curious as Beastie. So please, Scott Gordon, I'm sure we're all dying to know:

How did your meeting with Elder Oaks go?

So, if you will examine my underlined sections, you will note that you did/do in fact believe that Dallin H. Oaks was specifically sent to Scott Gordon's stake conference to "deliver the bad news" that FAIR must "tone it down," which news he was "forced" to deliver.

And, since the only part of this story that is true is that Elder Oaks spoke at a stake conference in Redding CA, which Bro. Gordon happens to be a member of, this thread does not count as a win for you.

So you're down to one. That's a ratio of what... 1/149 by my calculations. You're batting about a .006, or a 0.6%. All hail!

[_Yoda]

(Moderator Note) If you can't find your post, it was likely moved here:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=15668&p=384024#p384024

As I state on the split thread, let's watch the blatant, and sometimes crass, personal attacks. There needs to be a balance, even in Terrestrial. Thanks!

[_Doctor Scratch]

So, if you will examine my underlined sections, you will note that you did/do in fact believe that Dallin H. Oaks was specifically sent to Scott Gordon's stake conference to "deliver the bad news" that FAIR must "tone it down," which news he was "forced" to deliver.

Yes... And? You said:

You thought it was an actual, sit-down-together meeting concerning FAIR.

Where, in the above underlined portion, did I say that? I don't see anything in the above about a "sit-down-together meeting." What I said was that I was led to believe that Elder Oaks had been sent to deliver some bad news to Gordon concerning FAIR. And as far as I know, that was 100% true. Now, whether this happened and Gordon lied, or whether Oaks was ordered to deliver bad news and simply failed to do so.... Well, that's neither here nor there. (Though your citing of my post does remind me that it was astonishingly coincidental that Oaks would turn up at Gordon's stake precisely at that time.) Further, what you have to bear in mind is that Gordon apparently did not feel comfortably simply answering Beastie's question. Instead, he dodged for some 72 hours and had to consult at length with DCP before finally responding. Plus, I was told that shortly after this "meeting," Oaks was "demoted" from his post overseeing publications on Church history, so that ought to weigh in on your assessment, too.

[_The Nehor]

Look, I realize you are angry because your silly made-up story flopped but that's no reason to drop your facade of maturity and descend to childish insults.

In what sense was my post "childish" and/or "insulting"?

All of them.

By my reckoning, it was quite "adult" and very insightful, too.

[_Paul Osborne]

(Moderator Note) If you can't find your post, it was likely moved here:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=15668&p=384024#p384024

As I state on the split thread, let's watch the blatant, and sometimes crass, personal attacks. There needs to be a balance, even in Terrestrial. Thanks!

You're so right Liz and I'm sorry to have to see you split threads. Nomad and Simon need to tone it down a bit. When they get to talking it sounds like the telestial board. And, I know the telestial board better than anyone!

Paul O

[Guest]

You've been nothing but cynical lately. Is everything all right at home?

Low, cheap, and dirty. Typical Mopologetics. Thanks for the stereotypical repugnant nonsense, Simon.

Do you believe that Dr. Cam's interpretation of Mormon Doctrine on this thread is representative of actual Mormon Doctrine?

I don't really care. Do you really care? If so, why?

[_Paul Osborne]

What I said was that I was led to believe thatElder Oaks had been sent to deliver some bad news to Gordon concerning FAIR. And as far as I know, that was 100% true. Now, whether this happened and Gordon lied, or whether Oaks was ordered to deliver bad news and simply failed to do so.... Well, that's neither here nor there. (Though your citing of my post does remind me that it was astonishingly coincidental that Oaks would turn up at Gordon's stake precisely at that time.) Further, what you have to bear in mind is that Gordon apparently did not feel comfortably simply answering Beastie's question. Instead, he dodged for some 72 hours and had to consult at length with DCP before finally responding. Plus, I was told that shortly after this "meeting," Oaks was "demoted" from his post overseeing publications on Church history, so that ought to weigh in on your assessment, too.

Gordon is a liar and Oaks is a failure! It's obvious the apologists and the prophets are plotting against the truth.



Paul O

[_Kishkumen]

And, since the only part of this story that is true is that Elder Oaks spoke at a stake conference in Redding CA, which Bro. Gordon happens to be a member of, this thread does not count as a win for you.

LOL! You sure about that Simon? Seems like you know less about the situation than Scratch.