FARMS H-bombs the Three Nephites

[_Daniel Peterson]

You're an obsessive and malevolent loon, Scartch.

And I'm wasting my time.

Puccini beckons. Life is good. You're just an internet mosquito. I need to keep that firmly in mind.

[_Mister Scratch]

You're an obsessive and malevolent loon, Scartch.

And I'm wasting my time.

Puccini beckons. Life is good. You're just an internet mosquito. I need to keep that firmly in mind.

And yet you can't.

Have fun at the Puccini, by the way. It's a pity you're not seeing Pagliacci. It seems to me that it would be far more fitting for your frame of mind.

[_antishock8]

The Fat Man's M.O.:

1) Barge into thread, and claim:

a) You're uninformed

b) He's too busy to be bothered with what he's actually doing by posting that he's too busy to be bothered with posting.

c) Scratch is crazy

2) Turn every_single_thread he posts on into a thread about him

3) Scampers off in a huff

End result? Thread derailed. Mission accomplished.

Not one fuckin' substantive contribution to this board, even though he claims that's something he wishes were possible. The Celestial Forum awaits... As always... For a thoughtful contribution from the Fat Man.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Poor artichoke8 attempts a substantive post:

The Fat Man's M.O.:

1) Barge into thread, and claim:

a) You're uninformed

b) He's too busy to be bothered with what he's actually doing by posting that he's too busy to be bothered with posting.

c) Scratch is crazy

2) Turn every_single_thread he posts on into a thread about him

3) Scampers off in a huff

End result? Thread derailed. Mission accomplished.

Not one f*****g' substantive contribution to this board, even though he claims that's something he wishes were possible. The Celestial Forum awaits... As always... For a thoughtful contribution from the Fat Man.

Well done, little fellow!

[_Daniel Peterson]

The following is a standard response: Master Scartch has devoted himself since at least 2006 to publicly defaming me while maintaining his anonymity. I flatly deny virtually every allegation Master Scartch has ever made against me, and this one is no exception. I regard Master Scartch as an obsessive and malevolent loon, and have decided to refrain from further gratifying his weird fixation on me and those connected with me. Attempting conversation with him over the past many months has accomplished precisely nothing, and is, plainly, a complete waste of my time, especially given the fact that it's his self-described "mission" and "amusement" to be "perceived" by "Mopologists" as "full of hate." (Scartch, MDB, 1 October 2008)

Time to firm up the resolution. Life is good. Scartch is a waste of time.

[_Yoda]

Until you showed up, this thread was about the negative tone in the FARMS article. I'm not really sure why you thought this, or the Bloom thread, or the submission guidelines were about *you*.

Scratch, have you forgotten how you worded your opening statement for this thread?

As Dr. Gadianton has aptly demonstrated, FARMS has it in for Chapel Mormons. The niceties of community-based faith have no place in the cutthroat, pirhanna-like atmosphere of the l-skinny crowd.
(But...but...Mr. Scratch! You don't know anything about l-skinny! DCP won't tell you anything, and the multiple l-skinny postings available for our reading pleasure across the web are... Well, okay. I admit it. We know that the l-skinny people are real bastards. Honesty is always the best policy, after all.) So, it would make sense that the FARMS Review would launch a full-blown nuclear strike against anything which would even remotely try to posit the Three Nephites as a legitimate doctrinal truth. While Lamanites and golden plates are a-okay in the world of Internet Mormonism, things such as the Three Nephites get ridiculed in much the same light as bat babies in the latest issue of the National Inquirer.

Of course, I am speaking of Richard L. Hill's piece on About the Three Nephites. As DCP has admitted elsewhere, virtually all of these reviews are commissioned, so one can just imagine The Good Professor yukking it up, and drooling over the delicious thought of the authors of About the Three Nephites getting the "l-skinny treatment". (Hey, now, Mr. Scartch, er, uh, Scratch... I told you that you didn't know anything about that!) But, the conspiratorial antipathy is quite obvious:

Quote:
About the Three Nephites broadens the body of Latter-day Saint rumor, folklore, and apocryphal stories. Despite its stated objective in the Preface of "dispelling some of the rumor and myths which circulate from time to time" and "to quash rumor and untruth" (p. vii), this amateurish book carelessly and commercially propagates faith-promoting rumors, myths, and folklore under the guise of religious scholarship.


Gee, couldn't this be a self-description of the FARMS Review? But, it gets better, and even more conspiratorial:

Quote:
But more disturbing yet, About the Three Nephites appears to be a blatant and disgraceful rip-off of two earlier out-of-print books, The Three Nephites by the prolific and prominent polygamist author Ogden Kraut,2 and The Three Nephites: The Substance and Significance of the Legend in Folklore by professional folklorist Hector Lee.3 About the Three Nephites appears to have copied a substantial part of its chapter 1 from Kraut's work. In addition, this book appears to have copied almost all of its chapter 6 from Lee's work.

However, it does not stop there!


No, it sure doesn't! Indeed, the FARMS snowball rolls on, accumulating all manner of crap in its rolling. No doubt this Hill piece received the same "careful" commissioning, vetting, administrative debating, and publishing that every piece in FARMS Review has received. I must say, I am in awe of the administrative and editorial acumen on display here.

Bold emphasis mine.

There are several direct references to DCP, and his supposedly shady character and editorial practices plainly listed as part of your OP.

To flatly deny this is, as DCP points out, disingenuous.

And, when I tried to redirect the thread to more solely focus on the article, you, yourself, pointed out that I was "missing the point of the OP".

[_Daniel Peterson]

And, Liz, don't forget Scartch's revelation that "the l-skinny people are real bastards" (I'm one of the small number of people subscribed to Skinny-L ) and his mockery of "the administrative and editorial acumen " behind the FARMS Review (which I edit).

It wasn't about me.

Oh no.

Not at all.

The following is a standard response:

Master Scartch has devoted himself since at least 2006 to publicly defaming me while maintaining his anonymity. A particular focus of his hatred is the FARMS Review, which I founded and edit.

The FARMS Review has been appearing, now, for very nearly twenty years. The entirety of every issue of the Review is available on line, at

http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/review/

Anyone interested in inspecting the FARMS Review for himself or herself, without Scartch’s defamatory spin, without Scartch’s hostile selection and editing, without looking through the distorting Scartchian lens, is entirely welcome to do so.

I regard Master Scartch as an obsessive and malevolent loon, and have decided to refrain from further gratifying his weird fixation on me and those connected with me. Attempting conversation with him over the past many months has accomplished precisely nothing, and is, plainly, a complete waste of my time -- especially given the fact that it's his self-described "mission" and "amusement" to be "perceived" by "Mopologists" as "full of hate." (Scartch, MDB, 1 October 2008)

[_Mister Scratch]

Until you showed up, this thread was about the negative tone in the FARMS article. I'm not really sure why you thought this, or the Bloom thread, or the submission guidelines were about *you*.

Scratch, have you forgotten how you worded your opening statement for this thread?

As Dr. Gadianton has aptly demonstrated, FARMS has it in for Chapel Mormons. The niceties of community-based faith have no place in the cutthroat, pirhanna-like atmosphere of the l-skinny crowd.
(But...but...Mr. Scratch! You don't know anything about l-skinny! DCP won't tell you anything, and the multiple l-skinny postings available for our reading pleasure across the web are... Well, okay. I admit it. We know that the l-skinny people are real bastards. Honesty is always the best policy, after all.) So, it would make sense that the FARMS Review would launch a full-blown nuclear strike against anything which would even remotely try to posit the Three Nephites as a legitimate doctrinal truth. While Lamanites and golden plates are a-okay in the world of Internet Mormonism, things such as the Three Nephites get ridiculed in much the same light as bat babies in the latest issue of the National Inquirer.

Of course, I am speaking of Richard L. Hill's piece on About the Three Nephites. As DCP has admitted elsewhere, virtually all of these reviews are commissioned, so one can just imagine The Good Professor yukking it up, and drooling over the delicious thought of the authors of About the Three Nephites getting the "l-skinny treatment". (Hey, now, Mr. Scartch, er, uh, Scratch... I told you that you didn't know anything about that!) But, the conspiratorial antipathy is quite obvious:

Quote:
About the Three Nephites broadens the body of Latter-day Saint rumor, folklore, and apocryphal stories. Despite its stated objective in the Preface of "dispelling some of the rumor and myths which circulate from time to time" and "to quash rumor and untruth" (p. vii), this amateurish book carelessly and commercially propagates faith-promoting rumors, myths, and folklore under the guise of religious scholarship.


Gee, couldn't this be a self-description of the FARMS Review? But, it gets better, and even more conspiratorial:

Quote:
But more disturbing yet, About the Three Nephites appears to be a blatant and disgraceful rip-off of two earlier out-of-print books, The Three Nephites by the prolific and prominent polygamist author Ogden Kraut,2 and The Three Nephites: The Substance and Significance of the Legend in Folklore by professional folklorist Hector Lee.3 About the Three Nephites appears to have copied a substantial part of its chapter 1 from Kraut's work. In addition, this book appears to have copied almost all of its chapter 6 from Lee's work.

However, it does not stop there!


No, it sure doesn't! Indeed, the FARMS snowball rolls on, accumulating all manner of crap in its rolling. No doubt this Hill piece received the same "careful" commissioning, vetting, administrative debating, and publishing that every piece in FARMS Review has received. I must say, I am in awe of the administrative and editorial acumen on display here.

Bold emphasis mine.

There are several direct references to DCP, and his supposedly shady character and editorial practices plainly listed as part of your OP.

To flatly deny this is, as DCP points out, disingenuous.

Weelllll..... Okay. I will allow that, at the very least, the last mention of him was "character"-based, or whatever. The first mention is obviously a joke in reference to DCP's many false claims that we know "nothing" about l-skinny. The second mention is not a character attack, but rather an observation concerning the nature of editorial practices at the FROB.

And, when I tried to redirect the thread to more solely focus on the article, you, yourself, pointed out that I was "missing the point of the OP".

Here's what I wrote:

Hi, there, Liz. To a certain extent, I think you are missing the basic point of my OP. The point here is not so much that the apologists are attack The Three Nephites per se; rather, it is that there is zero tolerance for any "Chapel Mormon" engaging in doctrinal interpretation. This is the basic thesis that Gad posited some time ago, and I think that this is further evidence in favor of it.

Based on the bolded portions of your post above, I guess I am supposed to understand that you think the OP was meant to be primarily about DCP, rather than my clarification which I've just re-posted?

[_Yoda]

Based on the bolded portions of your post above, I guess I am supposed to understand that you think the OP was meant to be primarily about DCP, rather than my clarification which I've just re-posted?

I will take you at your word that your clarification is correct, and that you would like to see the thread take the direction of focussing on how chapel Mormon authors outside the FARMS loop can be criticized more harshly.

However, for you to seem surprised that DCP would think that this thread did not involve him as a primary piece, is, in my view, either disingenuous or naïve.

You are discussing a review forum that he obviously has a lot of his reputation wrapped up in, considering he is an editor for FARMS.

Frankly, what wouldn't make sense is if he DIDN'T comment. You indicated that "until he came along and posted on the thread" that the direction of the thread was all about the article. I'm simply pointing out that with the way your opening statement was worded, it would be pretty hard for DCP, or anyone heavily involved in FARMS, not to make some type of comment.

Also, given the history of tit for tat between you two, his viewing your initial position as an attack, even if it may not have been intentionally meant as one, is, I think, at the very least, understandable.

[_Mister Scratch]

Based on the bolded portions of your post above, I guess I am supposed to understand that you think the OP was meant to be primarily about DCP, rather than my clarification which I've just re-posted?

I will take you at your word that your clarification is correct, and that you would like to see the thread take the direction of focussing on how chapel Mormon authors outside the FARMS loop can be criticized more harshly.

However, for you to seem surprised that DCP would think that this thread did not involve him as a primary piece, is, in my view, either disingenuous or naïve.

Oh, it doesn't surprise me in the least! Of course he would think it was about him. Even Beastie has noted The Good Professor's odd tendency to warp otherwise topical discussions into referendums on him.