Darth J Unmasks Scott Lloyd's Prejudice on MAD

[_ttribe]

I can't speak as a "self-appointed" expert, but let's suppose that it is a hate site. I think you should submit it to SHIELDS or the FARMS Review immediately and encourage them to laugh at, mock, and scorn this individual suffering from mental illness, as you and Runtu have so diagnosed him. Prove to the world what an utter fool he is by exposing the most embarrassing moments of his life and destroy the empire of 74 links pointing to the material that he's created. You're sure to generate a huge round of high-fives on l-skinny and buoy up the testimonies of struggling members like Oxygenadams who feel much better after learning the Church is the predator rather than the prey.

I have no intention, desire, compunction, or plan to send this site to SHIELDS, FARMS Review, FAIR, the IRS, the FBI, the KGB, or any other organization. There was all this drama about not finding any anti-Mormon sites that met a definition of hate. I offered one up for evaluation. Do you intend to look at it and provide an answer to my actual question or not?

[_ttribe]

I don't think they have singled him out either, Runtu, Shields is pretty much a defunct website at this point. However, a suggestion from ttribe might get them back in the game, no?

No.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Doctor Scratch,

Allow me to remind you of your exact wording on your CFR.

CFR, Oxygenadam that there is "vicious hatred" on the part of Church critics at SHIELDS. I'd like to see you demonstrate, with evidence and analysis, where this material can be found. If you don't, I'll assume that you don't have a case.

At the beginning of my post, I anticipated that your opinion would disagree with my answer to your CFR, so I defined "hate" from two different dictionaries.

Hi there, oxygenadam. Do you know what "analysis" means? I urge you to use those two handy dictionaries to look up the word analysis, and to then ask yourself whether you really did fulfill the terms of the CFR. You supplied "examples" (arguably) but there is really no "analysis" beyond your own, obviously very biased, opinion.

Then I randomly chose some of the items from SHIELDS that fit this description, satisfying your CFR completely.

No, because you supplied no analysis, as I asked.

By the dictionary definition, all of these items qualify as hate.

How so, oxygenadam? With no analysis, your argument is awfully weak. Do you want me to pull up three or four dictionary definitions of the word "false" and apply it to the truth claims of the LDS Church? That's really the sort of argument you're advancing here, and it's terribly lame.

Then, you add to your original CFR! Amazing!

What "game"? If there is a "game" afoot here, I see no reason to play it, especially given the fact that you did not fulfill the terms of the CFR, especially this bit:

Why did you omit my original quote? I see that you are dishonestly moving the goalposts, oxygenadam. You seem hell-bent on preserving your self-sustaining myth about the valiance of SHIELDS.

Doctor Scratch, I suggest you either put up, or chalk up this loss to experience. You can't win them all, and it seems that your overconfidence is your weakness.

I'm delighted to "put up," Oxygenadam, but when you fail to fulfill the terms of the CFR, I see now reason to view you as a person who operates in good faith. But, I'm open minded and quick to forgive, so I'll remind you what you'll still need to address:

---You'll need to provide detailed analysis demonstrated exactly how and why your above cited passages constitute "vicious hatred" per your two quoted dictionary definitions. That is to say: you'll have to explain why the passages (and in particular the words and phrases you highlighted" are indicative of the dictionaries' definitions. I await your irenic reply.
---You'll need to tell us this (and this is now the third time I have "CFR"ed you on this):

Why don't you share with us the Christian material that shook your faith in the first place---i.e., the material that first led you to seek out the revenge tactics at SHIELDS?

It's very peculiar that you wouldn't just tell us this in the first place. It almost seems as if you are embarrassed or trying to hide something.

[_Gadianton]

It's very peculiar that you wouldn't just tell us this in the first place. It almost seems as if you are embarrassed or trying to hide something.

Hi there Doctor Scratch,

I think anyone in OxygenA's position is caught in a serious catch-22 and I'm pretty sure that's why he doesn't want to respond, even if he isn't fully conscious of what's going on here.

In fact, I can't entirely blame him because in all honesty, this line of thinking hadn't occurred to me until just now and it might be the most important discovery I've made all year, reaching well beyond OA and to the core apologists such as H and DCP.

It turns out I don't have time to reveal this discovery now, so look for a new thread tonight.

[_oxygenadam]

Again, allow me to remind you of your exact wording on your CFR. I'll add my own emphasis.

CFR, Oxygenadam that there is "vicious hatred" on the part of Church critics at SHIELDS. I'd like to see you demonstrate, with evidence and analysis, where this material can be found. If you don't, I'll assume that you don't have a case.

Note that it says nothing about sharing the "Christian material that shook your faith in the first place---i.e., the material that first led you to seek out the revenge tactics at SHIELDS?" That was later, in a different paragraph, not part of the CFR. I would be happy, however, to show you if I can find the site (if it even still exists). That isn't the issue, though. The issue is that I have given you definitions of hate, then provided you with examples of hate from SHIELDS, as the CFR asks. Can you not make this simple connection?

Hi there, oxygenadam. Do you know what "analysis" means? I urge you to use those two handy dictionaries to look up the word analysis, and to then ask yourself whether you really did fulfill the terms of the CFR. You supplied "examples" (arguably) but there is really no "analysis" beyond your own, obviously very biased, opinion.

I know what analysis means. I wonder if you do. Do you accept the American Heritage Dictionary as a valid source for word definitions?

a•nal•y•ses (-sēz')
1.
a. The separation of an intellectual or material whole into its constituent parts for individual study.

Now, predictably, you will say “Hi there, oxygenadam. That is only the first definition in that dictionary, and I do not agree with it. Please use the fifth definition.” Am I correct?

In any case, I have separated out the quotes that fit the two dictionary definitions of hate provided earlier, thereby separating them from the whole, and studied them individually.

Why did you omit my original quote? I see that you are dishonestly moving the goalposts, oxygenadam. You seem hell-bent on preserving your self-sustaining myth about the valiance of SHIELDS.

Which quote did I omit? It was unintentional if I did.

I'm delighted to "put up," Oxygenadam, but when you fail to fulfill the terms of the CFR, I see now reason to view you as a person who operates in good faith. But, I'm open minded and quick to forgive, so I'll remind you what you'll still need to address:

I have demonstrated that I have not failed to fulfill the terms of the CFR, and that I have operated in your version of good faith.

---You'll need to provide detailed analysis demonstrated exactly how and why your above cited passages constitute "vicious hatred" per your two quoted dictionary definitions. That is to say: you'll have to explain why the passages (and in particular the words and phrases you highlighted" are indicative of the dictionaries' definitions. I await your irenic reply.

No, that wasn’t in the original CFR. If you’d like to CFR me again with these items, you’ll have to answer my CFRs first.

---You'll need to tell us this (and this is now the third time I have "CFR"ed you on this):

No, you have never CFRed me on this. You are welcome to do so after you answer my CFRs.

[_oxygenadam]

I'm pretty sure that's why he doesn't want to respond

What do you mean? My response to Scratch went almost two days without a reply. I've been refreshing MD all day today, and he finally wrote a reply, to which I've already replied.

What do you mean I don't want to answer?

Why don't you start your thread over on MA&DB so we can all have a moderated discussion focusing on the arguments and not the people. I'd be more than willing to participate.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Again, allow me to remind you of your exact wording on your CFR. I'll add my own emphasis.

CFR, Oxygenadam that there is "vicious hatred" on the part of Church critics at SHIELDS. I'd like to see you demonstrate, with evidence and analysis, where this material can be found. If you don't, I'll assume that you don't have a case.

It's interesting that you and the other Mopologists often complain about "misrepresentation" or having your words "twisted," and yet look at what you're doing here. My comments in that posting were part and parcel. All you've done is snip out the portion of my post that best suits your apparently polemical ends. In the very same post you've been liberally quoting from, I wrote:

Which is why I continue to wonder why you haven't yet done it. (Not even a single example!) Why don't you share with us the Christian material that shook your faith in the first place---i.e., the material that first led you to seek out the revenge tactics at SHIELDS? Why don't you cite some of the "hateful" passages from that material?

You're lucky this isn't the aptly named MADBoard, by the way. We've issued so many CFRs to you at this point that you would have been banned, if this were MAD.

You haven't yet provided analysis of the quotations, nor have you told us about the "hateful" material that led you to SHIELDS.

Note that it says nothing about sharing the "Christian material that shook your faith in the first place---i.e., the material that first led you to seek out the revenge tactics at SHIELDS?" That was later, in a different paragraph, not part of the CFR. I would be happy, however, to show you if I can find the site (if it even still exists).

That's terrific, oxygenadam, since that's what I was asking for at the outset.

That isn't the issue, though. The issue is that I have given you definitions of hate, then provided you with examples of hate from SHIELDS, as the CFR asks. Can you not make this simple connection?

Of course. My issue continues to be that you failed to fulfill the "analysis" portion of the CFR. I don't think I'm being unreasonable here, oxygenadam.

Now, predictably, you will say “Hi there, oxygenadam. That is only the first definition in that dictionary, and I do not agree with it. Please use the fifth definition.” Am I correct?

No, you're not correct, though I do feel obliged to point out that dictionaries supply multiple meanings in order to cover the full range of nuances that are associated with that given word. Presumably, you're not trying to play Dictionary Nazi on this thread, and you're perfectly willing to allow that your insistence on this one, solitary definition of the word "analysis" might be problematic. Right?

In any case, I have separated out the quotes that fit the two dictionary definitions of hate provided earlier, thereby separating them from the whole, and studied them individually.

Where? Where is the "study"? Just in your own mind? I think you can understand why I would have a problem with accepting your own, private ratiocination as fulfillment of the "analysis" portion of the CFR. I asked you to *demonstrate* with analysis, not to simply claim that you performed it.

Why did you omit my original quote? I see that you are dishonestly moving the goalposts, oxygenadam. You seem hell-bent on preserving your self-sustaining myth about the valiance of SHIELDS.

Which quote did I omit? It was unintentional if I did.

Very well; I accept that. But now that I've clarified, I'm sure you'll be more than happy to explain which site or information it was that necessitated SHIELDS for your testimony's recovery.

I'm delighted to "put up," Oxygenadam, but when you fail to fulfill the terms of the CFR, I see now reason to view you as a person who operates in good faith. But, I'm open minded and quick to forgive, so I'll remind you what you'll still need to address:

I have demonstrated that I have not failed to fulfill the terms of the CFR, and that I have operated in your version of good faith.

That's terrific. I await your irenic reply.

---You'll need to provide detailed analysis demonstrated exactly how and why your above cited passages constitute "vicious hatred" per your two quoted dictionary definitions. That is to say: you'll have to explain why the passages (and in particular the words and phrases you highlighted" are indicative of the dictionaries' definitions. I await your irenic reply.

No, that wasn’t in the original CFR. If you’d like to CFR me again with these items, you’ll have to answer my CFRs first.

It absolutely was a part of the first CFR. You have not demonstrated, via analysis, that the passages contain "vicious hate." And further: you've not yet defined "vicious" hate. Obviously, "hating" to do the dishes---per your above-cited dictionary definition---and "hating" someone in a bigoted and murderous sense are two very different things. Perhaps you're suggesting that the Church critics on SHIELDS feel about Mormonism rather the same way that they might feel about, say, being stuck in traffic or taking out the trash? And that Midgley et al.'s responses are merited on that basis?

In any event (and to summarize) it appears that you are still unwilling to:

1) Demonstrate via analysis how and why the passages are evidence of "vicious hate", and
2) Explained what material it was that led you to SHIELDS in the first place.

As always, I await your irenic reply.

[_oxygenadam]

Scratch,

I am sure you agree that the terms “hate” and “vicious” have dictionary definitions, but much of what is considered hate or viciousness is left up to the person being misrepresented. Like all faiths, the LDS hold their beliefs as very personal, and very profound. So, while a non-LDS might not always see hate or viciousness, any misrepresentation, to an LDS believer who has his or her life invested in the faith, will be seen in this manner.

Again, let’s get our definitions straight :

hate (hāt)
v. hat•ed , hat•ing , hates

v. tr.
1.
a. To feel hostility or animosity toward.
b. To detest.
2. To feel dislike or distaste for: hates washing dishes.
v. intr.
To feel hatred.
n.
1. Intense animosity or dislike; hatred.
2. An object of detestation or hatred: My pet hate is tardiness.

Middle English haten , from Old English hatian . N., Middle English,from Old English hete.

Websters

Main Entry: 1hate
Pronunciation: \ˈhāt\
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English hete; akin to Old High German haz hate, Greek kēdos care
Date: before 12th century
1 a : intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury b: extreme dislike or antipathy : LOATHING <had a great hate of hard work>
2 : an object of hatred

Vicious
• (adj) evil, vicious (having the nature of vice)
• (adj) condemnable, criminal, deplorable, reprehensible, vicious (bringing or deserving severe rebuke or censure) "a criminal waste of talent"; "a deplorable act of violence"; "adultery is as reprehensible for a husband as for a wife"
• (adj) poisonous, venomous, vicious (marked by deep ill will; deliberately harmful) "poisonous hate"; "venomous criticism"; "vicious gossip"

Vice
• (n) frailty, vice (moral weakness)
• (n) vice (a specific form of evildoing)

“The Anti-Mormon Crusade”

I am the President of a new organization, the "Anti-Mormon Crusade". My group calls the Book of Mormon phone numbers and orders them so nobody else can read the FALSE testimant of Jesus Christ. The missionaries come to our houses and waste their time trying to talk to us about their cult. They also have given us many copies of the Book of Mormon. You Mormons are pretty stupid. The missionaries haven't even begun to realize that I'm really just taking them for a big ride. You can bet that in time my organization will keep on growing and take many more of your books. The Book of Mormon is just a big lie that gets people very confused about Jesus. I hope you can realize that the Bible is the one and only word of God before it's too late. Secondly, it really is not a church at all, but a cult formed by the devil himself. I think you Mormons need to realize the Book of Mormon is just a lie made by Satan to confuse people, and the more I intercept you have to give out to people who don't know what a big lie it is.
...
GET A LIFE OUTSIDE OF YOUR STUPID CULT MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
...
My Friend,
I hope that your church strongly considers changing it's name yo the church of jesus christ of latter day ain'ts. I can only hope that my convincing use of evidence will one day be as strong as yours is now. You have really convinced me to become a Mormon. Maybe one day I can have lots of wives when I am god of my own planet. You Mormons really really know your Bible. It's real neat how you guys focus on two or three words of a chapter and miss the whole picture. One day you'll realize the Book of Mormon is just like people believing the Earth is flat.

You said this didn’t count because you thought it sounded like a teenager. I did not know that there was an age requirement for hate. I don’t care how young or old (i.e. “little old lady”) you are, hate is hate.
This particular piece of trash is hateful because it calls my faith a “stupid cult,” and requests a name change to “Latter-day ‘ain't’s.” In addition, the author claims he or she “calls the Book of Mormon phone numbers and orders them so nobody else can read the FALSE testimant of Jesus Christ. “ More insults: “You Mormons are pretty stupid” and “The Book of Mormon is just a big lie” and the LDS church is “a cult formed by the devil himself.”
Now, the dictionary definition says that hate is “to feel hostility or animosity towards,” and this fits that description perfectly. It also has the nature of vice, and is most assuredly condemnable.

Baer, Richard

I must point out that the nature of the charges [from Mormonism: Shadow or Reality] DEMANDED an answer. If the charges were true, then the Mormon Church could not possibly be the only true church on the earth. In fact, if the charges were true, then the Mormon Church would not only have to be false, but it would have to have been founded by Satanic forces.
…
I HAVE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST Of LATTER-DAY SAINTS WAS FOUNDED BY A FALSE PROPHET WHO FOUNDED THE CHURCH BY LYING AND DECEIVING THE PEOPLE.
…
THE DOCTRINES OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS ARE FALSE DOCTRINES THAT WILL LEAD TO THE DESTRUCTION OF THOSE THAT FOLLOW AFTER THEM.

This qualifies because he implies strongly that he believes that the Mormon Church was, in fact, founded by Satanic forces, and is therefore evil. He goes on to say that it was founded by a “false prophet” who lied and deceived people. This is a personal attack on Joseph Smith. He obviously feels hostility or animosity toward Smith, the founder of Mormonism. These types of thoughts and writings are produced solely for the purpose of attempting to destroy the Church, and especially its credibility. Clearly the author feels hostility or animosity toward the LDS church.

Reachout Trust

"Many people believe Mormons to be just another denomination but this is not the truth."
…
"They believe that the Book of Mormon is more reliable than the Bible..."
…
"...Joseph Smith is as important as Jesus Christ..."
…
"The Bible clearly shows Mormonism to be false."
…

This is obviously one of the more mild examples, but these statements are not entirely accurate, and they represent an effort to drive members away from the LDS church. The last statement "The Bible clearly shows Mormonism to be false” could only be made by someone who feels hostility or animosity toward the LDS church, the author hates the LDS church.

Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries

Article titled “The Counterfeit Gospel of Mormonism”

Southern Baptist Convention

“The Maze of Mormonism” witnessing kit.

Does the sensational title of these articles qualify as hate and viciousness? According to the dictionary, they do. They make the Church an object of detestation or hatred, along with painting it as evil. What do you think the purpose of these types of articles is? Are they to accept and respect the LDS Church, or are they an attempt to destroy it? I think the answer is clear, and it is hate.

Ex-Mormon Archive

The secrecy surrounding Mormon Church finances and funding is equally suspicious. It seems the Mormon Church holds such power and sway over its members that it demands absolute trust, and gets it, even though the church does not trust them back enough to let them know where donated tithing money is being spent. Mormons raise more money per-capita than any other church in the world. Some speculate that it is SO MUCH that to divulge the amount would dissuade most people from even donating.

This is a huge misrepresentation. The LDS church does not hold any “power and sway over its members.” It paints the Church as some sort of bizarre cult. This article implies that, because we raise more money per capita than other churches that somehow makes the LDS church evil. The author clearly exhibits intense animosity and dislike with this article. The author also has moral weakness (vice)to be attacking someone else’s faith in such a manner.



Next, you asked for the site that "started it all" for me, and led me to SHIELDS, then FAIR, then FARMS, etc. After several hours of searching, I have found it. It is from the early 2000s so it looks a little messed up on modern browsers.

http://home.comcast.net/~champmd/index.html

In retrospective, it is very mild compared to some of the other anti-Mormon stuff out there, but at the time it hit me hard.


And now, since I have complied in good faith to your CFR, I expect you do comply, in good faith to my CFRs. Again, if you do not, I will assume this means you cannot backup your claims and are done with this thread.

[_Soso]

This qualifies because he implies strongly that he believes that the Mormon Church was, in fact, founded by Satanic forces, and is therefore evil. A

If this is your definition of hate, Joseph Smith hated all of Christianity. Since Mormons believe homosexuality is evil, they must really (despite all their claims to the contrary) hate the gay population of this planet.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Next, you asked for the site that "started it all" for me, and led me to SHIELDS, then FAIR, then FARMS, etc. After several hours of searching, I have found it. It is from the early 2000s so it looks a little messed up on modern browsers.

http://home.comcast.net/~champmd/index.html

In retrospective, it is very mild compared to some of the other anti-Mormon stuff out there, but at the time it hit me hard.

Hi there, oxygenadam. I see that you haven't provided any analysis for this, and therefore I cannot really regard you as having fulfilled the CFR here. Sorry! I'm fully and completely ready to address all of your CFRs, but I really think, all things considered, that you ought to fulfill all the terms I laid out in the beginning. And FYI: some of your "analysis" really leaves a lot to be desired, and I may have to ask that you backtrack and provide analysis that is actually convincing and logical. Just FYI.