From My Informant: DCP & Schryver Ordered to Stand Down

[_Simon Belmont]

Where, in the above underlined portion, did I say that?

I see, so you're a hyper-literalist now? What, pray tell, is the reader to glean from you stating that Bro. Gordon and Elder Oaks had a "meeting" -- that they were standing up the whole time, not together, or that they were sitting down together?

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.

It isn't. It isn't even remotely true. You're still 1/149, or 0.6% in accuracy. Good job.

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.

Neither of these options in your false dichotomy are true.

(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.)

Really? I've had GA's come to my stake when I was living out west. Was that, also, "astonishingly coincidental"?

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.

Sure, Scratch. Another untruth that you can't back up.

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.

Based on the accuracy (1/149, or 0.6%) of your "informants'" information, which you gullibly repost, it can be stated with almost near certainty that you are completely, verifiably, 100% wrong.

[_Simon Belmont]

Simon...you should be able to write at a level beyond someone who is failing Freshman English. Even on a message board. My posts are indicative of my scholarly and intellectual background whether or not I am writing a publishable journal article in every post.

And I do, Blixa.

No they weren't. I think you need to slow down and read more carefully. You'll learn more.

Read between the lines, Blixa; what were they implying?

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

It was snarky, offensive, ignorant, and a gross oversimplification.

[_Simon Belmont]

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.

Why? If he wanted serious discussion about it, he would have said it in a respectful manner.

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...

Why can I not dismiss putridness like that? Must I address every argument that every ignoramus makes on here (Joseph, Polygamy-Porter, CamNC4Me)?

[_Yoda]

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.

Why? If he wanted serious discussion about it, he would have said it in a respectful manner.

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...

Why can I not dismiss putridness like that? Must I address every argument that every ignoramus makes on here (Joseph, Polygamy-Porter, CamNC4Me)?

You may have not seen my post, Simon. Here is a question for you:

Simon, what is your view regarding the doctrine of plural marriage? If you believe D&C Section 132 to be completely accurate, then, as crudely as Cam put it, that is, in essence, part of our doctrine and what we believe.

I happen to think that in light of what President Hinckley stated on various occasions that there are some significant problems with that portion of our canon, and, it honestly needs to be ratified.

I posted this earlier in the thread. I'm honestly interested in your thoughts.

[_Blixa]

... Must I address every argument that every ignoramus makes on here (Joseph, Polygamy-Porter, CamNC4Me)?

Of course not. But you seem to only be interested in doing this and not anything else. Why not ignore them and bring more to the discussion yourself? Why not follow up on things I've asked you about, for example...

Plus, need I point out that your response wasn't just about Cam, but about "all apostates." That's what I take issue with. It's sloppy thinking.

[_Kishkumen]

Must I address every argument that every ignoramus makes on here (Joseph, Polygamy-Porter, CamNC4Me)?

The choice is all yours, Simon.

[_Paul Osborne]

Paul... my average posts per day have gone down. Take a look!

In another 5 posts you will exceed your daily average and it appears you are on track to do just that. It's like smoking -- one right after the other. You're a chain poster, Simon.

Paul O

[Guest]

No, Themis, what Schryver did was completely blow up the myth that there was a controversy about the Book of Abraham in the first place,

Couldn't help but laugh when I read this. It's obvious that there is a serious problems with the Book of Abraham and even a number of apologists think this. Even Will doesn't say he has done anything about the main issues surrounding the Book of Abraham. What theories he has brought about about the KEP are still unproven, and I can wait and see, but knowing a little about the man I wouldn't hold my breath. The KEP is not good evidence for Joseph's claims, but they are hardly the most serious evidence against Joseph's claims.

and from I have learned so far, he hasn't just "fooled a few people" but has instead convinced lots of folks, including me and a number of people (that I know about) in the COB.

A few, a lot. Both are subjective. I did say I think they were desperate enough to take someone like Will seriously.

They might not know what to make of his iconoclastic appearance (long hair and whatnot), but he can pretty much get permission to see anything in the archives he wants at this point on account of what he has done and the trust and confidence they have in him. Plus, he has connections and relationships that very few people know about. I know he has mentioned before that he was not born with the name of "Schryver". He was adopted as in infant and never knew of or met his father until he was an adult. It's a very interesting story that I'm sure will come out some day.

Trust and confidence I doubt. He does not have the education or knowledge about the issue that some others do that haven't been given permission, so I think he does have some good connections. It's very true about it not being what you know, but who you know.

[_TAO]

Apparently, liz, a believing Mormon, disagrees.

Tis fine, I disagree with people all the time XD.

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.

Hmmm....Let me show you why I think what he was saying was incorrect.

1) Has Sex all Day Long

Do we honestly know when God has sex? Do we know which days he didn't, or which days he did? Do we even know how long the time period in between those are...? No. We don't. Thus, this is an assumption and an incorrect statement.

2) Implication

The statement implies that it is a negative thing, and subtly implies that it is only the choice of the 'man-God'. Knowing how God expects me to proceed in marriage, this is about as far from the truth that you can get. To all of them up there - it is a positive thing. And the choice is I would suspect, far more in the hands of God's wife. Thus both parts of the implication are incorrect.

3) Polygamous

Do we know God practices polygamy? For only some have to. It is required that you understand it, but it is not a requirement for exaltation.

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...

Sorry, you were right, I should have posted why I viewed it as wrong. Well now we have those. I apologize I didn't provide them earlier, I should have.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Where, in the above underlined portion, did I say that?

I see, so you're a hyper-literalist now? What, pray tell, is the reader to glean from you stating that Bro. Gordon and Elder Oaks had a "meeting" -- that they were standing up the whole time, not together, or that they were sitting down together?

Just that they met. And they did. Gordon reported that Oaks told him to "keep up the good work."

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.

It isn't. It isn't even remotely true.

Why do you say that? Do you personally know Elder Oaks and/or President Monson?

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.

Neither of these options in your false dichotomy are true.

Oh, so you have concrete evidence demonstrating that your assertions are correct? By all means, share them.

(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.)

Really? I've had GA's come to my stake when I was living out west. Was that, also, "astonishingly coincidental"?

I don't know, Simon. Did the visit coincide with a lot of peculiar goings-on in the world of Mopologetics?

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.

Sure, Scratch. Another untruth that you can't back up.

Sure I can. Just count the time that elapsed after Beastie posed the question directly to Gordon. I know for a fact that Gordon was online, looking at that thread for quite some time.

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.

Based on the accuracy (1/149, or 0.6%) of your "informants'" information, which you gullibly repost, it can be stated with almost near certainty that you are completely, verifiably, 100% wrong.

Look: I've maintained from the outset that these allegations should be treated with skepticism. That said, without any contradictory hard evidence from the Mopologists, I see no reason why the claims should be dismissed.