Mister Scratch wrote:Again, how is this any different from what goes on on the fittingly named MADboard? Whatever DCP says is lapped up by his loyal following over there.
Yor loyal following here seems quite blind and obsequiously forgiving to your own errors and distortions, not to mention your premature speculations which at one stage had your credibility seriously on the line. Admit it Scratch, you love a headline and a sensational claim, even when you don't have any facts to back up your speculations. You love to get the gossip-mill rolling,
regardless of the truth. Please enlighten me, Ray. I have seen him call Quinn's work "tendentious and embarrassing." What "mind reading" does one really need to do to comment upon that?
Some of Quinn's work
is tendentious and embarrassing. I can think of few things more embarrassing to a scholar than extracting Joseph Smith quotes from the
History of the Church and speculating that Joseph may have been a homosexual. Even the Tanners balked at this:
Michael Quinn stirred up a great deal of animosity when he published an article in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought entitled, Male-Male Intimacy among Nineteenth-century Mormons: A Case Study. The Herald Journal for February 10, 1997, reported: "Quinn's views drew such fierce criticism in Cache Valley that the former Brigham Young University historian was uncertain whether his Friday visit would draw a hostile crowd." Fortunately for Quinn, there were no problems.
Although Dr. Quinn has published a great deal of important information regarding early Mormonism, we have a real problem with this particular article. Quinn wrote the following about Joseph Smith:
"And as taught by their martyred prophet himself, it was acceptable for LDS 'friends to lie down together, locked in the arms of love to sleep and wake in each other's embrace.' " (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Winter 1995, page 110)
In a footnote at the bottom of the same page, Michael Quinn spoke of "the tenderness involved in same-sex bedmates as advocated by the Mormon prophet."
When we first read these comments we were very surprised. We had never encountered anything like that before in our research regarding Mormon Church history. We did notice, however, that Quinn gave a reference to Joseph Smith's History of the Church. A careful examination of the context revealed that the quote was not referring to "same-sex bedmates," but instead to death, burial and the resurrection! It was a speech given by Joseph Smith on April 16, 1843, at the funeral of Lorenzo D. Barns. We take the following from Joseph Smith's History:
"It has always been considered a great calamity not to obtain an honorable burial... If tomorrow I shall be called to lie in yonder tomb, in the morning of the resurrection let me strike hands with my father, and cry, 'My father,'... When we lie down we contemplate how we may rise in the morning; and it is pleasing for friends to lie down together, locked in the arms of love, to sleep and wake in each other's embrace.... when the voice calls for the dead to arise, suppose I am laid by the side of my father, what would be the first joy of my heart? To meet my father, my mother, my brother, my sister; and when they are by my side, I embrace them and they me...." (History of the Church, Vol. 5, page 361)
A year after Michael Quinn published his article, George L. Mitton wrote a letter to the editor of Dialogue. His conclusions regarding Quinn's article were similar to ours. Mitton, however, went even further:
"The language Quinn cites is from a funeral sermon on the resurrection, where Joseph advocated that family and friends should be buried near each other if possible, lying down in nearby graves, so that they may wake at the resurrection to rejoice together and embrace in celebration of God's goodness and love. He is referring to family members who are our dearest friends, and describing a scene of intense family joy. The 'arms of love' is a scriptural allusion -- the imagery of godly love as the Lord extends it at the resurrection and otherwise...." Those who wish to know more about this issue should read George L. Mitton's letter to the editor in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Winter 1996, pages v-ix.
Mitten demonstrates that similar terms are found in the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants. For example, in one of Joseph Smith's early revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants we read that "God" told Oliver Cowdery to be "diligent in keeping the commandments... and I will encircle thee in the arms of my love." (Doctrine and Covenants, Section 6, verse 20)
In the Book of Mormon we find a similar expression: "But behold the Lord hath redeemed my soul... and I am encircled in the arms of his love." (2 Nephi 1:15) It seems clear then that the use of the words "in the arms of love" have nothing to do with "same-sex bedmates." While Quinn made a serious error, we find it hard to believe that he deliberately set out to deceive. It seems more likely that he merely misunderstood the context.
Quinn also suggested that Evan Stephens, "director of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir at the turn of the twentieth century, provides a case study in the use of social history sources, as well as being a prime example of the early Mormon celebration of male-male intimacy." While Quinn implies that Evan Stephens may have been a homosexual, there is no way to know for certain at this late date. We feel that it is unwise to speculate about the matter.
http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no92.htmOf course the Tanners will defend Quinn, but even they were "surprised" that he so obviously misread this quote, and read into it things he wanted to see. While Quinn is a prolific scholar, and I admire his large resource of information, some of his work is tendentious.
I see a clear difference between attacking arguments versus attacking character.
Your obsession with DCP is obvious to all, Scratch. If your "douche-bag" and "lard ass" comments are not a give away, your unhealthy obsession and revenge campaign against DCP should be obvious to all. Your stalking of DCP is also obvious:
The recent business with DCP, coupled with his article, "Apologetics by the Numbers" have left me wondering quite a bit about this supposed "archive" which he claims to maintain of old postings from RfM. It seems to me that many people---TBMs in particular---accept it as the God's honest truth that this "archive" is totally kosher and on the up-and-up. I question the integrity of this "archive," though, especially in lieu of a lot of recent happenings. DCP has shown, after all, that he is not infallible when it comes to scholarly integrity, as evidenced by the citation gaffes in "Apologetics by the Numbers" and "The Witchcraft Paradigm." Reading over the notes in these two essays, it is very clear that he has no problem manipulating data and information in order to suit his apologetic agenda. Further, DCP was a party to the "mislaying" of the so-called "2nd Michael Watson Letter." (I personally think that he and Prof. Hamblin should retract their claim about this letter. They should either produce the evidence, or retract the argument, otherwise all we have is their word, which, increasingly, doesn't seem to be worth very much.)
All that said, I think it is high time someone demand to see this "archive." I would like to know, How well kept is it? How accurate is it? Is DCP taking things out of context, or contorting them ala his recent essays? What, I wonder, would it take to convince him to share the contents of this "archive"? Further, what excuses might he make in order to avoid having to produce the evidence? Will he be forthright? Or will he hem and haw? Will this be another "2nd Watson Letter", which he conveniently is unable to show anyone? Will he be forthright? Or will he hem and haw? Will this be another "2nd Watson Letter", which he conveniently is unable to show anyone?
http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... php?t=1360Seems like you were the only one to take this thread seriously. And it's quite obvious what your intention is: To try to embarrass DCP in
any way you can! Any excuse for another Dan Peterson thread and some good old speculation and gossip-mongering, and of course to try to show that DCP's "integrity" is on the line. Your posts on DCP just drip with sarcasm and revenge, Scratch.
In case you haven't noticed, there is a contradiction in your claims. On the one hand, you claim we are "obsessed," and on the other, you say we "will not listen to what he has to say." Which is it?
Both.
Where have I said that he is a "homophobe"? Certainly, his gossipmongering about Mike Quinn's homosexuality doesn't paint him in a very positive light in that regard...
And
your gossip-mongering about DCP doesn't paint you in a very positive light, either.
The blog is for entertainment and information. It is not meant to be a "serious", scholarly engagement with anything. Do you not have a sense of humor, Ray?
Funny how you see all your mis-characterisations, wild speculation, swipes at DCP's integrity, and continual obsession as "humour". Is that what you call "humour" and "entertainment"? Did Shades find commentary about him on the
now defunct Mr. Itchy's blog "humourous" and "entertaining". How one-eyed are you, Scratch?
Your scenario does not make any sense, Ray. I did not disrespect or insult *anyone* while on FAIR. I was completely polite, and did not behave in any untowards way whatsoever. I defy you to find a single post of mine on FAIR that supports this completely ridiculous analogy. You know, I am starting to get pretty sick of your crap, Ray. There is a very simply solution for you in all of this: If you do not like my posts, don't read them.
Don't read them? Happily some have pointed out the irony of this statement. I am not your willing cur, nor an ostrich.
Not correct. I have no interest in posting on MAD.
When MAD
apparently relaxed their rules (before tightening up again), you wrote this:
Well, if you will allow me to participate, then perhaps I will see you there too, Scotty-dog!
http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... .php?t=271Deceiving yourself again, Scratch??
You know, Ray, it seems clear to me that you have been sitting here, boiling over with rage for quite some time. I remember clearly now how upset you were over discussions of the ironically named FAIRboard on the old version of MDB. It is obvious that you have been wracking your brain, trying to figure out a way to stop all this sort of discussion, which you hate so much. I also remember that you spent a good deal of time attacking Kevin Graham, who utterly and thoroughly kicked your ass. So, if you want to continue with your little boy whine-fest, I say: bring it on, because I will mop the floor with you too. "Boo hoo hoo! I'm poor little Ray! Wah, wah! The critics are mean to the apologists!" Keep on crying into your beer, Ray. When you actually have some substance, or a legitimate point, I will be waiting for you to enlighten me.
If there is a "little-boy whine fest" going on here, it's your "whine fest" against DCP, Juliann, and MAD. I am not attempting to stop anything. This is a free board with open discussions. Kevin Graham is not as obsessed as you are, and to his credit he has defended DCP on occasion against wild speculations. Will you ever do that, Scratch? Or just generate
more wild speculation?