From My Informant: DCP & Schryver Ordered to Stand Down

[_Simon Belmont]

Grow up and take some responsibility for yourself for once, infant.

Oh, right, like you blaming your mommy and daddy for "making" you go to church?

[_Doctor Scratch]

In what sense do you think that Mormon apologetics--and the various bureaucracies, institutions, practices, and people associated with it--is comparable with "unicorns"?

The truthfulness of your TMZ "intel" is comparable with "unicorns," since neither exist.

Huh? The "intel" absolutely does exist. What you seem to take issue with is the question of whether or not the "intel" is accurate. In some cases, it most certainly is--e.g. that S. Gordon met with Elder Oaks, and that R. Meldrum's book was pulled from the shelves of Deseret Book. In other cases, it's harder to confirm one way or another whether or not the "intel" is true or false.

With respect to your "unicorn" analogy---I'm curious what parts of the "intel" seem implausible or false to you, and what your reasons are for thinking that....

[_Simon Belmont]

Huh? The "intel" absolutely does exist. What you seem to take issue with is the question of whether or not the "intel" is accurate. In some cases, it most certainly is--e.g. that S. Gordon met with Elder Oaks, and that R. Meldrum's book was pulled from the shelves of Deseret Book. In other cases, it's harder to confirm one way or another whether or not the "intel" is true or false.

With respect to your "unicorn" analogy---I'm curious what parts of the "intel" seem implausible or false to you, and what your reasons are for thinking that....

Let us reread my statement:

The truthfulness of your TMZ "intel" is comparable with "unicorns," since neither [the truthfulness of your intel, nor unicorns] exist.

And you never stated simply that "S. Gordon met with Oaks." How many times to I have to repost your own words back to you?

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."

Elder Oaks actually re-arranged his schedule slightly so as to turn up at the Redding Stake Conference precisely at this time

So, really, if you think that it is sinister that Scott Gordon and Elder Oaks shook hands at Scott's stake conference, well then, I am guilty as well of having a meeting with Elder Oaks, since I've shaken his hand.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Gordon admitted on MAD that he and Oaks "met" on three separate occasions. The "handshake" that you're referring to is simply one among the three that Gordon is actually acknowledging. Who knows what went on in the other meetings? Plus, as I've pointed out, it could be that Oaks decided to disobey orders and keep the "bad news" to himself.

I'm still curious to learn how and in what ways this "intel" is implausible in the same sense as unicorns....

[_Yahoo Bot]

Who knows what went on in the other meetings?

Now THAT's evidence. One more Scratchism.

[_Simon Belmont]

Who knows what went on in the other meetings?

Yes, who knows? Who knows what went on at this meeting? Yet you post unwarranted speculation anyway. Well, I expect to see several threads about what else could have happened:

From My Informant: Scott Gordon served peach pie by Elder Oaks at the stake "linger longer!"
From My Informant: Scott Gordon asked "how are your wife and children," by Elder Oaks!
From My Informant: Elder Oaks tells Scott Gordon how great the pizza at Brick Oven is!

Plus, as I've pointed out, it could be that Oaks decided to disobey orders and keep the "bad news" to himself.

Or... (and brace yourself) there were no "orders" at all, and someone is playing you for a gullible fool!

[_Doctor Scratch]

Who knows what went on in the other meetings?

Now THAT's evidence. One more Scratchism.

Hi, Bob. Well... In a sense you're right. It's really more of an absence of evidence than it is "evidence" per se. I just found it interesting that Gordon would give a more specific and explicit description of this interaction whereas he didn't say anything at all about the other encounters w/ Elder Oaks.

[_Yahoo Bot]

Perhaps he was summarily excommuncated. After all, he and I don't see eye to eye with Scott about Dr. Sorenson and I'll bet I persuaded E. Oaks I was right.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Who knows what went on in the other meetings?

Yes, who knows? Who knows what went on at this meeting? Yet you post unwarranted speculation anyway.

I don't really think it's "unwarranted." It's based on the accuracy of other bits of "intel" I've been given.

Plus, as I've pointed out, it could be that Oaks decided to disobey orders and keep the "bad news" to himself.

Or... (and brace yourself) there were no "orders" at all, and someone is playing you for a gullible fool!

Look: I've stated rather candidly from the outset that the "intel" could be wrong. And as I've pointed out repeatedly on this thread, there have been some really plum opportunities for the Mopologists to blow the intel out of the water. Yet they never do. They give the usual rote (and uncheckable) denials, but they never haul out the "big guns" of concrete proof. In the case of Doctor Peterson, he went ballistic and posted well over a hundred times in response to the allegations about the MI's financial woes. And where is The Good Professor now? Gone. Shooed off into oblivion.

Why is that, I wonder?

[_Some Schmo]

Grow up and take some responsibility for yourself for once, infant.

Oh, right, like you blaming your mommy and daddy for "making" you go to church?

Yes, exactly. I quit going to church as soon as I was 17. If I kept going after leaving home and blamed it on my parents, that would be pretty immature, but I grew up and now take responsibility for myself.

It's your turn... or are you younger than 17? That would explain a lot.