Luke Wilson of the IRR dies

[_CaliforniaKid]

This was announced today in a thread at MADB. Since the OP, Pahoran has compared him to medieval anti-Semites, called him "smarmy and insincere," accused him of being "devious," and insinuated that the Lord should smite him in the afterlife.

[_Runtu]

This was announced today in a thread at MADB. Since the OP, Pahoran has compared him to medieval anti-Semites, called him "smarmy and insincere," accused him of being "devious," and insinuated that the Lord should smite him in the afterlife.

I'd comment over there, but I'd get banned for being a board nanny. Pahoran has said a lot of things (most recently comparing exmos to the KKK and Mormons to a certain derogatory term for African Americans), but he's just about outdone himself. Disgusting doesn't quite describe it.

[_the road to hana]

This was announced today in a thread at MADB. Since the OP, Pahoran has compared him to medieval anti-Semites, called him "smarmy and insincere," accused him of being "devious," and insinuated that the Lord should smite him in the afterlife.

Yes, he died several days ago. I actually was aware of it on a day that Charity was making disparaging comments about the Institute for Religious Research, but decided not to say anything because I believed she was unaware that he had just died, and probably would have been slightly more diplomatic in her comments had she known.

(Edited to add: Perhaps not. I just checked that other thread.

He's had a difficult couple of years, first losing his wife to serious illness. The only appropriate response at this time is one of charity and sympathy to the remaining family and loved ones.)

[_charity]

This was announced today in a thread at MADB. Since the OP, Pahoran has compared him to medieval anti-Semites, called him "smarmy and insincere," accused him of being "devious," and insinuated that the Lord should smite him in the afterlife.

Thisis the dialogue between Pahoran and Chris Smith.P: I was not going to stick it to him after he has died, but the gush below needs to be answered.

CS: Luke was a really nice guy. I do hope he's in a better place now.

P: A really nice guy, was he? Okay... When he changed the name of his business from the obvious "Gospel Truths Ministries" to the disingenuously neutral-sounding "Institute for Religious Research," was that what excited your admiration?
Or when he dumped Charles Larson's ridiculous "By His Own Hand" polemic on thousands of LDS doorsteps and ran away, was that an example of his niceness?Inquiring minds want to know! The fact is that the late Mr. Wilson was an anti-Mormon, and a rather devious one at that. Maybe he was nice to his co-religionists and those who despise the Church of Jesus Christ as much as he did, but that doesn't make him a "really nice guy."

That said, I do hope the Lord will treat him better than he deserves.

CS:Institute for Religious Research is a much more credible-sounding name that Gospel Truths Ministries.

P:Is it? To people who share their perspective of Gospel truth--indeed, to anyone who believes that the Gospel is true--"Gospel Truths Ministries" sounds pretty credible. What it does not sound is neutral; which is fair enough, because it is not, and never was. "Institute for Religious Research" was a disingenuous attempt to make it sound neutral in order to deceive the unwary; including and especially Latter-day Saints.


CS:Can you blame them for wanting to sound credible? "Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies" doesn't sound like a polemical apologetic organization, but unfortunately that's essentially what they are (their objections notwithstanding).

P: No it is not, your intentionally false accusation notwithstanding.

CS:Are they dishonest because they chose a neutral name for themselves? I'm sorry, but this objection is a petty swipe at a good man. If this is the best you and John Gee can come up with, you can keep it to yourselves, thank you very much.

P:Your hagiography is noted. Your attempt to silence me will be given the attention it deserves.

CS:In any case, Luke's contribution to the credibility of the organization was not just a name change. There was a noticeable increase in the quality of their articles during his tenure; many of them could even be described as "academic". If that's the vision he had for the organization, is it any surprise he wanted to change the name?

P: In that case, perhaps he should have waited to change the name until after he'd finished with his anti-Mormon polemics.


CS:Kevin Barney told me he thought By His Own Hand was a good introduction to the issues, despite the poor attempt at evangelism contained therein. I know plenty of people who agree with him. So to characterize it as "ridiculous...polemic" is something of an overstatement; it's hardly in a class with the Tanners and the Browns, for example.

P:I agree that it's better than the Tanners' stuff, by about the same margin that it is inferior to the efforts of the Browns. Your attempt to smear the Browns by association with the Tanners is noted, and has failed.

CS: Believe it or not, Luke's dissemination of By His Own Hand was motivated by a desire to see Latter-day Saints preserved from hell. If you knew somebosy was about to drive off a cliff, would you let them do so just to preserve yourself from posthumous slander in the virtual land of internet message boards? I wouldn't. Luke Wilson believed you, my friend, are careening off a cliff. Can you blame him for trying?

In my correspondence with Luke he made it very clear that his number one objective was to share the truth in as charitable a manner as possible. No doubt he did not always succeed. I'm afraid none of us can succeed all the time. But he did better than most.

P:Ah yes, the old "speaking the truth in luuuurve" schtick. Luke succeeded about as well as the medieval anti-Semites, who forced every Ghetto in Italy to provide a house for Jewish catechumens. It was all about giving Jews a chance at salvation as Christians, right?

The fact is, Chris, that nobody believes this cover story, which only succeeds in making those who spout it sound smarmy and insincere. Why not just come out and admit that you can't stand having to share the planet with people who believe in living prophets? I'm sure you'll feel better.

CS: You make me ill.

That is the exchange. Now, you can look at it and make your own decision and not depend on CK's evaluation.

I can't find anywhere that Pahoran wishes him any smiting.

[_the road to hana]

This was announced today in a thread at MADB. Since the OP, Pahoran has compared him to medieval anti-Semites, called him "smarmy and insincere," accused him of being "devious," and insinuated that the Lord should smite him in the afterlife.

Thisis the dialogue between Pahoran and Chris Smith.P: I was not going to stick it to him after he has died, but the gush below needs to be answered.

Completely inappropriate. Bringing it here, even worse.

[_charity]

Completely inappropriate. Bringing it here, even worse.

You mean this completely open board where we can discuss anything and not worry about being banned? You shouldn't criticize CK like that.

[_Runtu]

Completely inappropriate. Bringing it here, even worse.

You mean this completely open board where we can discuss anything and not worry about being banned? You shouldn't criticize CK like that.

We don't have to worry about being banned. But we can (and will) point out when someone is behaving badly. And no one was criticizing Chris.

[_Runtu]

I can't find anywhere that Pahoran wishes him any smiting.

No, he just equated Wilson and Chris Smith(!) with anti-Semites and stated that Chris and the rest of us critics can't stand having to share the planet with Mormons. You really find this acceptable, charity?

[_the road to hana]

Completely inappropriate. Bringing it here, even worse.

You mean this completely open board where we can discuss anything and not worry about being banned? You shouldn't criticize CK like that.

I mean this was a human being who just lost his wife in the past couple of years after a very difficult struggle with very serious illness, including bone marrow transplants, and then passed away very suddenly and unexpectedly himself. Whether or not you knew him personally, or believed him to be, he strove to be a good person, and believed himself to be a man of God.

Compassion would be appropriate at this time. I'd expect that much from you, if not from others. So yes, your response does surprise, and very much disappoint.

I think you should spend some time on the website set up in his memory and try to get to know him a little better posthumously, and perhaps gain some sensitivity to the loss his family has endured.

http://www.lifestorynet.com/memories/30003/

Charity, I'm of the belief that even if everyone on this board didn't agree with you personally, if you suddenly lost a husband, or a child, there would be plenty of compassion for you here.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I sense double-standards all around!