DiscussMormonism.com

Well, I hate to say it but I agree with Wade.

I don't believe anyone there truly "hates" me, but I could be wrong. Shades used that word in the title of this thread and I just went with it; perhaps since their own logic suggests they really do hate me. Meaning, they frequently accuse critics of hatred all the flippin time, usually for doing nothing more than criticizing some aspect of the Church. So following their standard of what constitutes "hatred," their recent slime campaign exceeds the criterion. I mean hell, they even got Tradd Button to get in on the action as pumplehoober, and an anti-Kevin party just wouldn't be the same without him. I am witnessing the reunion of virtually every aggressive opponent I have encountered over the past three years.

I'm touched.

Clearly, they're all going ballistic over this email from Ritner, and their only possible defense is to, you guessed it, shoot the messenger.

Having said that, some of them have certainly used the word "hate" in reference to my arguments, but strangely enough, I can't seem to recall Wade ever correcting them.

Kevin Graham wrote:Well, I hate to say it but I agree with Wade.

I don't believe anyone there truly "hates" me, but I could be wrong. Shades used that word in the title of this thread and I just went with it; perhaps since their own logic suggests they really do hate me. Meaning, they frequently accuse critics of hatred all the flippin time, usually for doing nothing more than criticizing some aspect of the Church. So following their standard of what constitutes "hatred," their recent slime campaign exceeds the criterion. I mean hell, they even got Tradd Button to get in on the action as pumplehoober, and an anti-Kevin party just wouldn't be the same without him. I am witnessing the reunion of virtually every aggressive opponent I have encountered over the past three years.

I'm touched.

Clearly, they're all going ballistic over this email from Ritner, and their only possible defense is to, you guessed it, shoot the messenger.

Having said that, some of them have certainly used the word "hate" in reference to my arguments, but strangely enough, I can't seem to recall Wade ever correcting them.

Yeah, hate is probably too strong. How about "uncharitable," "angry," or "bitter"? Those work.

Runtu wrote:

dartagnan wrote:I never knew what it was to be hated, until I left apologetics.

I had the same experience. When I was an apologist, I was kind and evenhanded. When I "switched teams," I was a "board nanny" and full of anger and hate.

Runtu,

When the mother of all board nannies calls you a board nanny, you really need to consider the rich irony in that!

Jersey Girl wrote:

Runtu wrote:

dartagnan wrote:I never knew what it was to be hated, until I left apologetics.

I had the same experience. When I was an apologist, I was kind and evenhanded. When I "switched teams," I was a "board nanny" and full of anger and hate.

Runtu,

When the mother of all board nannies calls you a board nanny, you really need to consider the rich irony in that!

I know. I find it hilarious that said board nanny isn't content with critiquing the tone of that board but this one as well. Rich irony indeed.

Thank you both for posting that review. Interesting the book was only $10.00 when it first came out, its close to $40.00 now.

I'm about 2/3rds of the way through it, but took a break because it is heavy reading, and I've been distracted by a number of old sermons I've been reading.

It is true that there are a large number of references, but in my opinion they do tie together nicely. i thought the part about the facimile #2 being very similar to the shield of acchiles was pretty cool.

I don't know if he covers it in the book, but in the video "Faith of an observer" he goes through an egyptian temple and shows the comparisons to our modern temple ceremony through the heiroglyphics.

good stuff.

Runtu wrote:

wenglund wrote:I haven't come across anyone who I thought actaully "hated" the person using the online name of "Kevin Graham". I know a few on either side of the apologetic aisle who have found his cantankerous posting style and farcical hubris to be quite repelling at times. But, that doesn't mean he is "hated".

Besides, "hatred" is a rather strong emotion, and one that is typically reserved for those thought to be of significance. I am not sure these day whether "Kevin Graham" register anything more than a very dim and infrequent blip on the apologetic radar--not unlike myself.

So, what makes some of you believe he is "hated"?

My reason for asking (besides my finding the claim dubious at best), is that if such a hatred does exist, it may be helpful to explain to the alleged haters why it may be very much to their disadvantage to hate. I would need to know who the supposed haters are so that I could explain that to them.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Not long ago you suggested that critics of the church are bigoted and hateful, and I've seen this site and other exmo sites decried as "hate speech." Yet when people question Kevin's honesty and integrity, say that he's merely stirring up the pot to get attention, you can't bring yourself to use such a word.

No. I made no such sweeping designation regarding Church critics. My definition of bigotry was quite specific, and I believe only a minor portion of the critics would qualify. I have even said as much. Things like stirring the pot, and questioning people's honesty and integrity were not included in my definition regardless of whoever may have leveled those accusation towards Kevin--I certainly haven't said anything of the sort regarding him. Also, my definition applied to attitudes and behaviors regarding groups, not individuals (such as Kevin Graham). So, why you would think there is any sort of relevant comparison here, is a mystery to me.

However, if you can demonstrate how the alleged "Kevin haters" qualify under my definition of bigotry, then you may have a point. Until then, I will wait to see on what basis of your own you and others are lead to believe that Kevin is hated.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Kevin Graham wrote:Well, I hate to say it but I agree with Wade.

I don't believe anyone there truly "hates" me, but I could be wrong. Shades used that word in the title of this thread and I just went with it; . . .

I used the term kinda like the phrase "Playa haters" is used. Somehow, "Kevin Graham dislikers" didn't seem to do the job.

. . . perhaps since their own logic suggests they really do hate me. Meaning, they frequently accuse critics of hatred all the flippin time, usually for doing nothing more than criticizing some aspect of the Church.

Good point. I think it makes the thread title that much more apropos, since they're the ones who throw the term around so casually.

Hello,
I have seen and watched Egyptologist Dr. Robert Ritner speak in the video movie Titled, "The Lost Book of Abraham', and he looks and he sounds very extremely very much scholarly and very much Professional. Egyptologist Dr. Robert Ritner explains very well in this movie video, why there Could Not possibly have been a text of the Book of Abraham on the Book of Breathings Scroll. Egyptologist Dr. Robert Ritner is a very well educated scholar, who knows very much and very well what he is talking about.

Further, this idea of being hated has never really been an issue for me until I became a "turncoat." I was never hated by the critics but it is clear I am hated by the apologists. There were plenty of critics in the past who thought I was a jackass of jackasses while posting as an apologist (I went by "Kevinator" because Barry Bickmore called me that as a compliment) but they never accused me of the things I have been accused of recently.

Kevin, You are much more of a threat to DCP and his friends now than you ever were to critics like myself. Note the crud they toss at the Tanners. Folks like DCP cannot criticize you for not understanding LDS teachings. And they can't attack you for making money off it like they did the Tanners. The remaining alternatives are to either answer your arguments or attack your character, honesty, etc. It's much easier to do the latter than the former. One wonders if the apologist are uncomfortable about the cogency of their arguments and take the easy route.

/quote]

Religious groups are generally uncomfortable with dissidents.

Yes even Evangelicals

The LDS seem to be worse than average in this regard.

Oh not really. I have seen it in all faiths. And radical Muslims kill you for dissent.

Thus we also see that if you have no problem with Kevin making a critic look bad, then it's the height of hypocrisy to all of a sudden do an about-face and cry foul when Kevin makes an apologist look bad.

Now take that back to MA&D, why don't you?

I certainly don't always agree with Kevin (though he tends to be spot on regarding Islam). However, I do know that 'the powers that be' are afraid of his mastery of debate and command of the facts (which they cover up with some imagined or artificially magnified offenses). Of course such command does not mean he is right. He is often hypocritically accused of the very same rudeness that others give to him.

LDS apologia is better with him than without him. How else can truth rise to the top without some opposition? How can we answer the tough questions if we are never challenged?