DiscussMormonism.com

Mister Scratch wrote:Am I a bad person?

No.

Do I deserve to be hurt, as Prof. Peterson and The Nehor have suggested?

No.

Am I merely a "smear-meister," as Jason Bourne has said?

Absolutely not!

Indeed, if I am as much of a "monster" as these and other individuals have suggested, then perhaps I ought to make a permanent exodus from the messageboard.

Please stay. You are sorely needed.

Here is SHIELDS again, quoting from the police report:

I spoke with the deceased's wife, Darlene Martin. She told me her husband was a diabetic and had Coronary Artery Disease. She said that about four years ago Mr. Martin's doctor advised him to have a bypass, but Mr. Martin opted to change his condition by improving his diet. She also said he had his arteries surgically "cleaned" about 5 years ago.

Mrs. Martin told me that she "awoke at approximately 0600 hours. Since her husband was not in bed she looked into the bathroom and discovered her husband's body. Mrs. Martin then called Police.

And the SHIELDS commentary:

SHIELDS wrote:It is our understanding that it is not at all uncommon for people to die while on the toilet, and it is certainly no disgrace to "Dr." Martin or his family for this to have happened to him. It seems that not only in life did "Dr." Martin attempt to build a myth about his understanding of the LDS faith, his relationship to Brigham Young, and his academic credentials, but with his death some of his family and/or friends felt the need to extend the "Martin Myth" to include a "holy passing." Such a need is a sad commentary on the nature of those in what Dr. Midgley refers to as the "countercult industry," a major portion of the efforts of which go into criticizing the LDS Church.

This is really sick. Incredibly un-Christlike.

Mister Scratch wrote:Other Mopologists, like G. Novak, L. Midgley, and yourself, conduct Mopologetics by attacking and smearing people, and by spitting on their graves.

This statement is spot-on.

Daniel Peterson wrote:This is the way some here play the game. A thread is launched or a note posted that attacks me. I respond to it. At that point, I'm accused of whining and of attempting to hijack the thread.

Your ever-present martyr complex does color your posts around here.

.

I spoke with the deceased's wife, Darlene Martin. She told me her husband was a diabetic and had Coronary Artery Disease. She said that about four years ago Mr. Martin's doctor advised him to have a bypass, but Mr. Martin opted to change his condition by improving his diet. She also said he had his arteries surgically "cleaned" about 5 years ago.

Mrs. Martin told me that she "awoke at approximately 0600 hours. Since her husband was not in bed she looked into the bathroom and discovered her husband's body. Mrs. Martin then called Police.

And the SHIELDS commentary:

SHIELDS wrote:It is our understanding that it is not at all uncommon for people to die while on the toilet, and it is certainly no disgrace to "Dr." Martin or his family for this to have happened to him. It seems that not only in life did "Dr." Martin attempt to build a myth about his understanding of the LDS faith, his relationship to Brigham Young, and his academic credentials, but with his death some of his family and/or friends felt the need to extend the "Martin Myth" to include a "holy passing." Such a need is a sad commentary on the nature of those in what Dr. Midgley refers to as the "countercult industry," a major portion of the efforts of which go into criticizing the LDS Church.

This is really sick. Incredibly un-Christlike.

I am amazed that anyone who expects -nay, presumably actively hopes - to meet Jesus of Nazareth in person one day could write like that.

Or even someone who hopes to meet Saul of Tarsus:

1 Corinthians 13:2

And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

Soldiers from civilized countries, whose job is to kill those countries' enemies, feel obliged to treat their dead bodies with respect and give them a decent burial. It appears however that the SHIELDS writer thought it a better policy to mock and spit on his adversary - at least in intention - even in the moment of his death.

Again, if I believed that Jesus would one day be my judge, I would hesitate to treat an enemy in a way that might remind that judge how he had been treated as he hung dying.

But this kind of thing is worse than irreligious - it is less than human.

Chap wrote:Soldiers from civilized countries, whose job is to kill those countries' enemies, feel obliged to treat their dead bodies with respect and give them a decent burial. It appears however that the SHIELDS writer thought it a better policy to mock and spit on his adversary - at least in intention - even in the moment of his death.

Again, if I believed that Jesus would one day be my judge, I would hesitate to treat an enemy in a way that might remind that judge how he had been treated as he hung dying.

But this kind of thing is worse than irreligious - it is less than human.

Since this unholy mess has been brought to the spot light, I wonder if MI will rethink any relationship it might have with SHIELDS, or if they will continue with business as usual?

harmony wrote:

Chap wrote:Soldiers from civilized countries, whose job is to kill those countries' enemies, feel obliged to treat their dead bodies with respect and give them a decent burial. It appears however that the SHIELDS writer thought it a better policy to mock and spit on his adversary - at least in intention - even in the moment of his death.

Again, if I believed that Jesus would one day be my judge, I would hesitate to treat an enemy in a way that might remind that judge how he had been treated as he hung dying.

But this kind of thing is worse than irreligious - it is less than human.

Since this unholy mess has been brought to the spot light, I wonder if MI will rethink any relationship it might have with SHIELDS, or if they will continue with business as usual?

Guess the answer ...

Chap wrote:

harmony wrote:Since this unholy mess has been brought to the spot light, I wonder if MI will rethink any relationship it might have with SHIELDS, or if they will continue with business as usual?

Guess the answer ...

I am an optimist! I hope they will do the right thing.

Gadianton wrote:

DCP wrote:Off hand, I can't remember anything. But there probably was something once. Maybe more than once.

Barker Bio wrote:and has been noted as providing resource material for some issues of FARMS Review

Is the biographer of brother Barker lying? Or severely "mistaken"?

I'm not sure that I see a contradiction between our two statements. Why would you propose that Stan's "biographer" might be "severely 'mistaken,'" or even "lying"?

Gadianton wrote:Clearly, Barker has contributed material for the Review more than once.

Apparently so.

Gadianton wrote:Fine, but, would you agree then that anything involving Dr. Walter Martin's personal circumstances, specifically his manner of passing, was not the business of SHIELDS?

I wouldn't have written about this situation -- and, as a matter of fact, have not written about it -- but, if Martin's supporters were circulating a false faith-promoting story about the manner of his passing, I can see why some might have chosen otherwise.

If it had been Joseph Smith rather than Walter Martin, and if it had been the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints spreading the (per hypothesis) false faith-promoting story about his passing, anybody revealing the far less edifying truth about the circumstances of his death would have been celebrated by many here and elsewhere as a cultural icon and a hero.

Gadianton wrote:Don't tell me you celebrate "curiosity" when it exposes an "anti-Mormon", but abhor it if its directed toward an apologist.

Don't worry. I won't.

Would you abhor such "curiosity" as intensely if it exposed a prominent Mormon leader as much as you abhor it when it seems to expose a prominent evangelical anti-Mormon?

Dwight Frye wrote:A search of the MI website turns up the following hits for Stan Barker:

Three footnote acknowledgments of Stan Barker in the FARMS Review, of which thirty-four issues have appeared to date, each one of which contains probably about five-hundred to a thousand footnotes, on average. No mention of Stan Barker in any of the twenty-five or so issues of the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, apparently, nor in any of the 100+ books that the Institute has published.

Just to put things in perspective.

Mister Scratch wrote:Well, this is all very fascinating. Really, it has caused me to push away from my keyboard momentarily as I nod gravely and press my fingers together in a steeple shape. In my mind, I say, "Yes, it's all beginning to come together now."

A pretty funny image, in my mind.

Mister Scratch wrote:Prior to his retirement, J. Tvedtnes was a paid Mopologist at FARMS.

Not quite. Prior to his retirement, John Tvedtnes was a paid staffer at FARMS. He was paid for his work editing, evaluating submissions, evaluating proposals for research funding, etc. His writing was done on his own time.

Mister Scratch wrote:Stan Barker functions as a kind of Mopologetic "gopher" for FARMS, maintaining "creepy dossiers" and delivering weekly emails to DCP.

Not even close.

Stan Barker has his own life. If he maintains "creepy dossiers" in the Scratch style, I'm unaware of them. I see e-mails that he posts on Skinny-L. He seldom writes to me directly. And Skinny-L is just a bunch of acquaintances (some who've written for FARMS, some who haven't) exchanging e-mails, some of which deal with a common interest in apologetics, but many of which deal with the weather in Missouri, American electoral politics (some members of the list are liberal Democrats, some are conservative Republicans), the glories of New Zealand, one member's dislike of Italian cuisine, good hiking trails around Mount Rainier, movie recommendations, and the like.

Mister Scratch wrote:It may be that Barker has been specifically assigned by Top Dawg Mopologists to assemble "creepy dossiers" on Christian critics of the LDS Church.

Nope.

Mister Scratch wrote:Barker's viciousness and bitterness (as evidenced by his Martin Piece) may be due to his lower-rung status. That is, he doesn't have a Maxwell Institute appointment, doesn't get paid, and doesn't get much recognition for his dossier assembling.

I always get a kick out of amateur attempts to psychoanalyze strangers.

Mister Scratch wrote:SHIELDS has significant and important ties with "official" Mopologetics---far stronger ties than DCP was initially willing to admit.

Only a dedicated Scratchist could pretend to deduce such a conclusion from Stan Barker's having been mentioned in three footnotes over the course of the past two decades.

Mister Scratch wrote:DCP's antics on this thread appear to have been a kind of smokescreen meant to distract us from learning these truths about Barker's wickedness.

Another piece of the puzzle falls into place. Another watershed moment, letting the fluid of truth course through the deserts of Mopologetic skullduggery.

I love the rhetoric. I hope you have an accompanist on a theater organ.

Gadianton Scratch wrote:

Another piece of the puzzle falls into place. Another watershed moment, letting the fluid of truth course through the deserts of Mopologetic skullduggery.

Beautifully put, my friend.

QED.

Rollo Tomasi Scratch wrote:

Mister Scratch wrote:Other Mopologists, like G. Novak, L. Midgley, and yourself, conduct Mopologetics by attacking and smearing people, and by spitting on their graves.

This statement is spot-on.

And Rollo Tomasi Scratch weighs in, too!

Can Kishkumen Scratch be far behind?

Chap wrote:Soldiers from civilized countries, whose job is to kill those countries' enemies, feel obliged to treat their dead bodies with respect and give them a decent burial. It appears however that the SHIELDS writer thought it a better policy to mock and spit on his adversary - at least in intention - even in the moment of his death.

Again, if I believed that Jesus would one day be my judge, I would hesitate to treat an enemy in a way that might remind that judge how he had been treated as he hung dying.

But this kind of thing is worse than irreligious - it is less than human.

It seems rather ridiculous to me to compare the SHIELDS article to mutilating or desecrating a corpse.

harmony wrote:Since this unholy mess has been brought to the spot light, I wonder if MI will rethink any relationship it might have with SHIELDS, or if they will continue with business as usual?

Since there is no institutional relationship between the Maxwell Institute and SHIELDS, and since most of those at the Institute probably don't even know that SHIELDS exists, I suspect that business at the Institute will continue as usual.

Daniel Peterson wrote:Since there is no institutional relationship between the Maxwell Institute and SHIELDS, and since most of those at the Institute probably don't even know that SHIELDS exists, I suspect that business at the Institute will continue as usual.

*watching the water roll off the shed*...

I sit aghast before my computer.

Run C Cleaner.

This is due is part to my having done a great deal of self-reflection lately.

The guile begins even in the first few lines.

Am I wrong?

Only in what you do. I'm not sure that you really believe in much of what you say.

Am I a bad person?

My stomach...

Do I deserve to be hurt, as Prof. Peterson and The Nehor have suggested?

I would accept breaking on the rack...initially...

Am I merely a "smear-meister," as Jason Bourne has said? I sure hope not.

You know very well what you are Scratch. A poseur.

Move on, nothing to see here.