Darth J Unmasks Scott Lloyd's Prejudice on MAD

[_Paul Osborne]

Your overconfidence is your weakness Palpatine!

Your faith in your friends is yours.

Paul O

[_Doctor Scratch]

Hi there, oxygenadam. I'm delighted to see that, after some nine pages of dodging, you've at last attempted to post some evidence that demonstrates, via examples and analysis, that the SHIELDS apologists are justified in stooping to some astonishing lows in their crusade to destroy critics' lives. Of course, there are a ton of things wrong with your argumentation and logic. Like this, for example:

I grow weary of you dodging the CFRs that I presented you with. If you can't support your claims, that's fine, just tell me and I'll leave you alone about them.

I can support them perfectly well. Whether I choose to do so simply because you asked me is another matter entirely.

Here you are essentially tossing the definitions out the window in favor of a purely subjective (not to mention somewhat fascist) way of judging things. You are arguing, in effect, that the dictionary definitions don't really matter since the given hardcore LDS will pick and choose what s/he deems to be "vicious hatred." Well, by that standard, any of your cited critics could turn around and say that the LDS Church itself is riddled with "vicious hatred" given the way that it has historically distorted the truth on a number of issues.

LDS may see things as more vicious or hateful than non-LDS, because of the deep-rooted devotion to their faith. Just like Catholics probably find much of anti-Catholocism more visious and hateful than, say, you would.

It doesn't change the dictionary definitions, and all of the examples I supplied fit those definitions. So, objectively and subjectively, I have satisfied your CFR.

No, you haven't. Dictionary definitions don't exist in a vacuum. If they did, we could look up "life" and "God" and "meaning" in the OED and that would be the end of it. We could conveniently kiss the academic fields of philosophy, linguistics, theology, and etc. goodbye.

It has not been established, nor is it the subject of this discussion whether the LDS Church "historically distorted the truth on a number of issues." This is a blatant red herring on your part.

The subject of discussion is whether or not you've been able to find legitimate evidence of "vicious hate" on the part of Church critics, and further, what constitutes "vicious hatred." You admitted that it's really a purely subjective issue, thus why I pointed out that any misdeed or distortion of truth on the part of the Church could be construed as "vicious hatred." If you use subjective definitions, this is what happens. There's no "red herring" here at all.

Lots of people consider truth, honesty, and forthrightness to be "very personal, and very profound," and if a powerful and absolutist institution like the LDS Church is trampling on these values, I think you'd agree that robust criticism is in order.

Intellectual discussion, and constructive criticism is fine. Hate is not.

But you haven't provided any real criteria for distinguishing between the two.

And this returns us to our original discussion point (and let's face it---the CFRs were a bit of a diversion),

Perhaps they were, for you, who seems to be unable to back them up.

I can back them up. Perhaps I will, if you can explain how they were relevant to the main thrust of the discussion. (Maybe it's actually you who is guilty of the Red Herring logical fallacy?)

which is the issue of whether or not the apologists are justified in their disgusting behavior on SHIELDS. You suggested it was, since the Church critics "started it." Obviously, you have no evidence whatsoever for this claim. (It was a dumb and naïve claim to begin with.)

In essence, yes. For example, if I went to the heart of Jerusalem and started an anti-Semite bookstore, and expected to peacefully coexist with the Jewish population, I would either have to be completely insane, or completely stupid. If I went to Salt Lake City, during a Pentecostal Church convention, and gave seminars titled "Understanding our Mormon Neighbors" that blatantly made false representations, I would have to be insane, or stupid to think that it would not meet with opposition.

???? You argument doesn't make any sense. You say, "In essence, yes," meaning (I take it) that you agree that it was the *critics* who "started it," which would mean that you are basically ignoring the Church's nearly 200-year history, ignoring the Church's huge missionary effort, ignoring the Church's global reach. In short, your rationale is completely absurd.

I think the real problem, for you, is that these scholars, who are very educated and knowledgeable, many of whom hold a PhD from a top university, can easily outsmart and out maneuver the claims of anti-Mormons.

Huh? So you think that the apologists have supplied good explanations for the Book of Abraham or the historicity of the Book of Mormon? The apologists have cooked up good justifications for Joseph Smith's polygamous activities? Or MMM? Let's face the facts here, oxygenadam: what you really admire about the Mopologists is the fact that their willing to get their hands dirty--that they're willing to engage in cheap tactics, name-calling, rumor mongering, and smear campaigns. *That* is what you like about them. It has nothing whatsoever to do with intellectual rigor or legitimate scholarship. "Mopologetics," after all, is not a discipline.

anti-Mormons, of course, don't like this, because many of them make their living by attacking this one institution. If they are found to be false, they will lose their job.

No one: not you nor any apologist has ever, ever provided documentation proving that Church critics earn a living by criticizing Mormonism. This is one of the great on-going myths of Mopologetics. Perhaps it's true, but I've never seen anyone pony up any evidence for it. Ever.

That the antics of the SHIELDS Mopologists would rescue your wavering faith is a thing that utterly defies logic, and it suggests that you're more interested in revenge and aggressive polemics than in spiritually uplifting edification. But, I think in the end that most LDS apologists don't care what you think or feel, just so long as you maintain fidelity to the Church.

Yes, I know how you loathe apologists. I've read many of your posts over the years, about how you want them to pay for what they've done.

What they've done is continually exposed, outsmarted, and outwitted the vile hatred of anti-Mormons. Let me say it again, Scratch, Apologists would not exist if anti-Mormonism didn't exist.

A dumb line of reasoning, since it's easy enough to reply, "anti-Mormonism would not exist if Mormonism didn't exist." Does that seem like a reasonable claim to you?

Now, If you do not intend to honor my CFR request, we are done with this thread.

Perhaps I'll "honor" your CFR. Perhaps not. Maybe if you remind me how it (singular?) is pertinent to the thread, I'll point you in the direction of the relevant reference. If it turns out that your CFR was just a red herring-type diversion, though, I'm going to expect you to apologize for trying to maliciously change the subject.

[_oxygenadam]

Scratch, be honest with me. Are you the author of MormonZeitgeist.com? Are you Lyle Slaughter? You both seem to be fairly educated, write well, and hate Mormonism. If you don't want to publicly admit it, you may PM me. This is a serious question.

Now, on to your little diatribe.

I can support them perfectly well. Whether I choose to do so simply because you asked me is another matter entirely.

Yup, just what I thought.

Consider a kindergarten schoolyard discussion:
"Hey Billy, I can fly!" says the first child
"No you can't, prove it!" says Billy
"I could do it, if I wanted to" says the first child, in response

You issue a CFR and I meet it in good faith. I issue a CFR, and you play ring-around-the-rosy with it. At first, I assumed that this would be at least somewhat of an honorable discussion, but I see now that it is very likely not going to be. Especially after reading through many of your past posts here, I have seen what type of sophistry exists in your arguments.

No, you haven't. Dictionary definitions don't exist in a vacuum.

Well, the dictionary is there for a reason. I don't think you can categorically dismiss it.

The subject of discussion is whether or not you've been able to find legitimate evidence of "vicious hate" on the part of Church critics, and further, what constitutes "vicious hatred." You admitted that it's really a purely subjective issue, thus why I pointed out that any misdeed or distortion of truth on the part of the Church could be construed as "vicious hatred." If you use subjective definitions, this is what happens. There's no "red herring" here at all.

But you haven't provided any real criteria for distinguishing between the two.

I am not of the position that it is purely subjective, that is why I provided the dictionary definitions, which you deny. Whatever fits the position you accept, and whatever doesn't you deny. Convenient. There is no hatred of any kind in a religion doing their own thing, worshiping how they wish.

I can back them up. Perhaps I will, if you can explain how they were relevant to the main thrust of the discussion. (Maybe it's actually you who is guilty of the Red Herring logical fallacy?)

I simply want you to back up your claims. If you can't then this thread is done. Simply not wanting to is a cop out in the purest form.

???? You argument doesn't make any sense. You say, "In essence, yes," meaning (I take it) that you agree that it was the *critics* who "started it," which would mean that you are basically ignoring the Church's nearly 200-year history, ignoring the Church's huge missionary effort, ignoring the Church's global reach. In short, your rationale is completely absurd.

No, Scratch. A church can exist, and should exist without people bothering, pestering, persecuting, and hating it. It's in the Constitution, and it's in out Articles of Faith. I hold both of those documents sacred, and I believe in letting people worship how, where or what they may.

I really do not understand your apparent deep rooted hatred for apologists (by the way, I am not one). It is a very simple thing to understand that people like you created apologists. I maintain that, if anti-Mormonism didn't exist, Mormon apologetics would not exist. You created it, and you cannot deny it.

Huh? So you think that the apologists have supplied good explanations for the Book of Abraham or the historicity of the Book of Mormon? The apologists have cooked up good justifications for Joseph Smith's polygamous activities? Or MMM?

Absolutely! But again, Scratch, that is not the topic of this discussion. These red herrings are distracting indeed!

...what you really admire about the Mopologists is the fact that their willing to get their hands dirty--that they're willing to engage in cheap tactics, name-calling, rumor mongering, and smear campaigns. *That* is what you like about them.

Let me fix this statement for you...

...what you really admire about anti-Mormons is the fact that they're willing to get their hands dirty--that they're willing to engage in cheap tactics, name-calling, rumor mongering, and smear campaigns. *That* is what you like about them.

Now, that's more accurate, because is there were no anti-Mormons engaging in these tactics, there would be no apologists engaging in them. Again, you created this monster.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with intellectual rigor or legitimate scholarship. "Mopologetics," after all, is not a discipline.

That's right, it isn't, because it's a word that you and your buddies made up as a derogatory term. It's not a word, and it has absolutely no meaning, therefore it cannot be a discipline.

No one: not you nor any apologist has ever, ever provided documentation proving that Church critics earn a living by criticizing Mormonism. This is one of the great on-going myths of Mopologetics. Perhaps it's true, but I've never seen anyone pony up any evidence for it. Ever

That reminds me, one of my CFRs to you was to find documentation about FARMS "multi-million dollar" budget. With all the other conspiracy theories (none of which have come true) about FARMS over the years, and your "insider" informants, you should have no problem with this, and with my other CFRs.

A dumb line of reasoning, since it's easy enough to reply, "anti-Mormonism would not exist if Mormonism didn't exist." Does that seem like a reasonable claim to you?

No. Mormonism does not, by it's nature, require anti-Mormonism. What are you trying to do here? Do you think that anti-Mormons should be allowed to run rampant with bitter hatred towards Mormonism, spreading their tired-old debunked arguments? We need apologists to tell the truth, and to set the record straight. I don't care how much you hate them, you made them!

Perhaps I'll "honor" your CFR. Perhaps not. Maybe if you remind me how it (singular?) is pertinent to the thread, I'll point you in the direction of the relevant reference. If it turns out that your CFR was just a red herring-type diversion, though, I'm going to expect you to apologize for trying to maliciously change the subject.

I don't want the direction of the relevant reference. I want you to post your information, then provide a link to where you got it. if you dodge them again, I will just assume that you cannot back up anything you say. It will not look good for your future credibility.



I await your answer to my CFRs, as well as the answer to my MormonZeitgeist question.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Scratch, be honest with me. Are you the author of MormonZeitgeist.com? Are you Lyle Slaughter?

I'm not going to say.

I can support them perfectly well. Whether I choose to do so simply because you asked me is another matter entirely.

Yup, just what I thought.

Consider a kindergarten schoolyard discussion:
"Hey Billy, I can fly!" says the first child
"No you can't, prove it!" says Billy
"I could do it, if I wanted to" says the first child, in response

You issue a CFR and I meet it in good faith. I issue a CFR, and you play ring-around-the-rosy with it. At first, I assumed that this would be at least somewhat of an honorable discussion, but I see now that it is very likely not going to be.

Well, you're right about that. It was transparently obvious from the moment you issued your CFRs (and it is staggeringly dishonest for you to now act as if it was simply one, in-good-faith CFR, rather than a bunch of them) that your notion of "honor" is seriously distorted. Just look at this and try to tell me that this is the behavior of an even-keeled person who is interested in a good-faith discussion:

no reasonable person has ever had anything positive to say about SHIELDS.

CFR

SHIELDS' function as a smear-mongering machine and an oracle of abject hatred, a depository for all of the Mopologists' worst and most disgusting impulses.

CFR

You do know, don't you, that many of the apologists are paid to function as apologists?

CFR

The Maxwell Institute has a multi-million dollar budget.

CFR

The apologetic mission is listed right there in the mission statement.

CFR

You need to put the word "scholary" in "scare quotes" when you're discussing mcuh of the Maxwell Institute's work, since they do not abide by the normal standards of legitimate scholarship. (For example, they don't utilize the usual peer review process.)

CFR

Moreover, even the seemingly benign material done on Middle Eastern issues is actually apologetic since it serves as window dressing for the real "meat" of the MI: Mopologetics.

CFR

In both instances, DCP and Hamblin are establishing "set up." Their goal here isn't to have a nice, respectful conversation, since neither of them is capable of doing that with critics.

CFR

No. The behavior of the individuals involved is genuinely sickening and degenerate. It's the behavior of people who have so given themselves over to the Adversary that they can no longer recognize right from wrong.

CFR

Matt Roper actually gets paid to do apologetics. The same was apparently true of John Tvedtnes (now a SHIELDS "associate"!) when he worked for FARMS. Plus, DCP was once paid $20,000 to function as the Chair of FARMS. So: people really do get paid. I don't think this is a terribly controversial issue.

CFR, and I will not accept “because DCP said so.”

The poster called "Infymus" had his private correspondence with Dr. Peterson posted to SHIELDS, and this resulted in him missing out on job opportunities. DCP needled him into getting angry, and when he finally did, Dr. Peterson posted the private emails to SHIELDS as an act of revenge.

CFR

Juanita Brooks was shunned by her fellow LDS.

CFR

Actually, the truth is that the Maxwell Institute is much, *much* better funded and staffed than *any* Christian ministry---at least as far as I know. The typical ministry is *tiny* in comparison to the multi-million dollar MI.

CFR

Kind of beside the point, given that Prof. Midgley ridicules, demeans, and attacks Foster's particular version of Christianity.

CFR, and I don’t want a second hand account from the Tanners, to “Dr. Shades”, to you. That isn’t evidence, that’s heresay.

I have read enough of Dr. Midgley's publications to know that he is a deeply hostile and angry individual---someone who is hell bent on exacting revenge.

CFR

There are fifteen CFRs here, oxygenadam, and yet in your past couple of posts, you have tried to make it seem as if you'd only issued *one*! How remarkably, stunningly dishonest of you! It appears that engaging in gross and wholesale distortion is a character trait of yours.

Face it: you did not issue these CFRs in good faith. You were angry and frustrated that I and others had asked you to demonstrate that "vicious hate" exists on SHIELDS, and your response was to carve up one of my posts and pound out the letters "CFR" after each sentence. It's humorous, in a sad sort of way, that you thought I would take these CFRs seriously, though I will go ahead and extend you the benefit of the doubt if you are genuinely serious about getting answers to some of these items. I won't do your homework for you, but I'm glad to point you in the right direction. (Here's a hint for one of them: the material in the MI's Mission Statement can be found in the MI's Mission Statement!)

No, you haven't. Dictionary definitions don't exist in a vacuum.

Well, the dictionary is there for a reason. I don't think you can categorically dismiss it.

Where have I "categorically dismiss[ed]" it? If anything, *you* are the one who has pushed aside the definitions in your crusade to label all criticism as "vicious hate."

The subject of discussion is whether or not you've been able to find legitimate evidence of "vicious hate" on the part of Church critics, and further, what constitutes "vicious hatred." You admitted that it's really a purely subjective issue, thus why I pointed out that any misdeed or distortion of truth on the part of the Church could be construed as "vicious hatred." If you use subjective definitions, this is what happens. There's no "red herring" here at all.

But you haven't provided any real criteria for distinguishing between the two.

I am not of the position that it is purely subjective,

Yes, I know: you think it's "subjective" only when it suits your malevolent agenda.

that is why I provided the dictionary definitions, which you deny.

I don't "deny" them (whatever that means). I'm simply pointed out that citing dictionary definitions does not a cogent or persuasive argument make.

There is no hatred of any kind in a religion doing their own thing, worshiping how they wish.

Yes, of course. I'm sure that the Church of Satan would agree heartily with this. As would the perpetrators of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and the cuckolded husbands of Joseph Smith's polyandrous wives.

???? You argument doesn't make any sense. You say, "In essence, yes," meaning (I take it) that you agree that it was the *critics* who "started it," which would mean that you are basically ignoring the Church's nearly 200-year history, ignoring the Church's huge missionary effort, ignoring the Church's global reach. In short, your rationale is completely absurd.

No, Scratch. A church can exist, and should exist without people bothering, pestering, persecuting, and hating it. It's in the Constitution, and it's in out Articles of Faith. I hold both of those documents sacred, and I believe in letting people worship how, where or what they may.

As I said, this is a terribly myopic, simple-minded, and naïve position. You are describing a situation in which the Church would exist in a vacuum, with zero interaction with the outside world. Plus, I bet your "sacred" views on these documents would come apart pretty quickly were they to be applied to, say, the FLDS. Besides, among certain Christian sects the idea of "saving" people is considered a crucial part of the faith. Thus, "rescuing" Latter-day Saints from what they view as "false" doctrine is a critical part of the "existence" of these faiths.

I really do not understand your apparent deep rooted hatred for apologists (by the way, I am not one).

Where did I say that I "hate" apologists" Or are you putting words in my mouth?

It is a very simple thing to understand that people like you created apologists.

*Me*? Lol. You realize that I'm Mormon, yes:

I maintain that, if anti-Mormonism didn't exist, Mormon apologetics would not exist. You created it, and you cannot deny it.

This is a chicken/egg argument. Circulus in demonstrando: Mopologetics is justified because of anti-Mormonism. Mopologetics would not exist were it not for anti-Mormonism. Anti-Mormonism exists, so therefore, Mopologetics is justified. Circulus in demonstrando.

What your logic ignores is the existence, attitudes, and practices of the Church itself.

You are really falling to pieces, oxygenadam. Take a look at your brazen misrepresentation here:

Let me fix this statement for you...

...what you really admire about anti-Mormons is the fact that they're willing to get their hands dirty--that they're willing to engage in cheap tactics, name-calling, rumor mongering, and smear campaigns. *That* is what you like about them.

Now, that's more accurate, because is there were no anti-Mormons engaging in these tactics, there would be no apologists engaging in them. Again, you created this monster.

Who is "you"? For all you know, I just got back from the temple.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with intellectual rigor or legitimate scholarship. "Mopologetics," after all, is not a discipline.

That's right, it isn't, because it's a word that you and your buddies made up as a derogatory term. It's not a word, and it has absolutely no meaning, therefore it cannot be a discipline.

It is a word, and it has meaning. The apologists themselves have used it in the past. It is a conflation of the words "Mormon" and "apologist." And no: it is not a discipline.

No one: not you nor any apologist has ever, ever provided documentation proving that Church critics earn a living by criticizing Mormonism. This is one of the great on-going myths of Mopologetics. Perhaps it's true, but I've never seen anyone pony up any evidence for it. Ever

That reminds me, one of my CFRs to you was to find documentation about FARMS "multi-million dollar" budget. With all the other conspiracy theories (none of which have come true) about FARMS over the years, and your "insider" informants, you should have no problem with this, and with my other CFRs.

This first is a link to a thread where this was discussed (in case the subsequent links don't work):

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... &start=147

And these are the actual links to FARMS's 990 Forms from the late 1990s. They are a matter of public record:


http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/1 ... 60-1-9.pdf
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/1 ... 60-1-9.pdf
http://204.203.220.33/EINS/953442860/95 ... 006318.pdf

Perhaps I'll "honor" your CFR. Perhaps not. Maybe if you remind me how it (singular?) is pertinent to the thread, I'll point you in the direction of the relevant reference. If it turns out that your CFR was just a red herring-type diversion, though, I'm going to expect you to apologize for trying to maliciously change the subject.

I don't want the direction of the relevant reference. I want you to post your information, then provide a link to where you got it. if you dodge them again, I will just assume that you cannot back up anything you say. It will not look good for your future credibility.

Lol. I think that most readers need only to look at your silly and over-the-top outburst of "CFRs" to make a evaluation about the seriousness and legitimacy of your original requests. You ought to just say, "I love that the Mopologists are vicious smear-fiends" and be done with it.

[_oxygenadam]

I'm not going to say.

Yes, upon reading many of your past posts, specifically a thread where Ray A asked you to reveal your identity, you claimed that you would be willing to do so, yet never did. That, of course, is your right, but the real question is: what are you afraid of? I mean, if you really are Lyle Slaughter, you've got a sweet last name.

Well, you're right about that. It was transparently obvious from the moment you issued your CFRs (and it is staggeringly dishonest for you to now act as if it was simply one, in-good-faith CFR, rather than a bunch of them).

in your past couple of posts, you have tried to make it seem as if you'd only issued *one*! How remarkably, stunningly dishonest of you! It appears that engaging in gross and wholesale distortion is a character trait of yours.

It really shows how powerful your argument is when you pick out tiny little mistakes I've made (like not including an "s") twice and call me out on them. When we examine my use of CFR vs. CFRs, one can plainly see that 7/9 of the time, I do not make the mistake, where as 2/9 of the time, I do. This really shows my dishonesty, I guess, when roughly 23% of the time I make a mistake and don't add that eternally important "s."

7/8/2010 2:51pm If you’d like to CFR me again with these items, you’ll have to answer my CFRs first.
7/8/2010 2:51pm You are welcome to do so after you answer my CFRs.
7/8/2010 8:05am And now, since I have complied in good faith to your CFR, I expect you do comply, in good faith to my CFRs
7/9/2010 10:30am Further, I don't believe you are "fully and completely ready to address all of [my] CFRs.
7/9/2010 12:35pm I grow weary of you dodging the CFRs that I presented you with.
7/9/2010 12:35pm Now, If you do not intend to honor my CFR request, we are done with this thread.
7/12/2010 5:27pm I issue a CFR, and you play ring-around-the-rosy with it.
7/9/2010 5:27pm That reminds me, one of my CFRs to you was to find documentation about FARMS "multi-million dollar" budget.
7/9/2010 5:27pm I await your answer to my CFRs, as well as the answer to my MormonZeitgeist question.

your notion of "honor" is seriously distorted. Just look at this and try to tell me that this is the behavior of an even-keeled person who is interested in a good-faith discussion:

Yes, it most certainly was. You made claims, and you are supposed to back them up, especially when directly asked. There is no saying "I could if I wanted to" for the honorable, it takes a person of the highest caliber to admit when he or she cannot backup certain claims. Would you like me to pick out the most important claims for you, and reduce the CFRs to make it easier on you? Because I am nice, I will do that.

Perhaps you could provide documentation for these claims:

You do know, don't you, that many of the apologists are paid to function as apologists?

The Maxwell Institute has a multi-million dollar budget.

And not an article from ten to fifteen years ago. This sentence is written in the present tense, I expect the source to be somewhat recent.

You need to put the word "scholary" in "scare quotes" when you're discussing mcuh of the Maxwell Institute's work, since they do not abide by the normal standards of legitimate scholarship. (For example, they don't utilize the usual peer review process.)

Matt Roper actually gets paid to do apologetics. The same was apparently true of John Tvedtnes (now a SHIELDS "associate"!) when he worked for FARMS. Plus, DCP was once paid $20,000 to function as the Chair of FARMS. So: people really do get paid. I don't think this is a terribly controversial issue.

Again, I will not accept "because DCP said so."

Do you think you can handle four? If not, you are free to resign from this thread.

Face it: you did not issue these CFRs in good faith. You were angry and frustrated that I and others had asked you to demonstrate that "vicious hate" exists on SHIELDS, and your response was to carve up one of my posts and pound out the letters "CFR" after each sentence. It's humorous, in a sad sort of way, that you thought I would take these CFRs seriously, though I will go ahead and extend you the benefit of the doubt if you are genuinely serious about getting answers to some of these items. I won't do your homework for you, but I'm glad to point you in the right direction. (Here's a hint for one of them: the material in the MI's Mission Statement can be found in the MI's Mission Statement!)

You cannot read my mind. If you think that this board has any negative effect on my "in real life" self, emotional or otherwise, you are gravely mistaken. I find this whole discussion board a back-slapping, high-fiving, Mormon hate fest. I only posted here because I was directly quoted from another board where civility resides.

Doctor Scratch, can you back up your claims? If so, prove it. I've made it plainly easy for you by dismissing some of your claims, reducing the CFRs to four! If you cannot handle this, resign from this thread.

Oh, by the way, MI's mission statement says nothing about apologetics.

Yes, I know: you think it's "subjective" only when it suits your malevolent agenda.

My "agenda" is hardly malevolent. I believe it is deeply wrong to hate other faith groups, and I stand by that, and I will defend my own against attacks. It is noble and right.

Yes, of course. I'm sure that the Church of Satan would agree heartily with this. As would the perpetrators of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and the cuckolded husbands of Joseph Smith's polyandrous wives.

You really should read more about the Church of Satan. I do not believe they are harming anyone. For example, their rule #4 states that:

Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it instead of love wasted on ingrates!

I bet your "sacred" views on these documents would come apart pretty quickly were they to be applied to, say, the FLDS. Besides, among certain Christian sects the idea of "saving" people is considered a crucial part of the faith. Thus, "rescuing" Latter-day Saints from what they view as "false" doctrine is a critical part of the "existence" of these faiths.

Again, I don't attack the FLDS, and I don't believe in attacking any faith group unless they break the law. In the case of the FLDS, it is up to law enforcement, not self-righteous Christians.
Other faith groups can teach about their own faith group, that is fine. The attacking, the publishing of hateful material, the setting up ministries of hate is very deeply wrong.

Where did I say that I "hate" apologists" Or are you putting words in my mouth?

It's very obvious, reading your posts over the years. If it is untrue, now is the time to redeem yourself.

*Me*? Lol. You realize that I'm Mormon, yes:

You keep your identity so secret that you could be Aleistair Crowley for all anyone knows. The way you mock the sacred teachings of Mormonism led me to believe that you are not LDS, but perhaps your online self is an alter ego. I think I'll just assume you're Lyle Slaughter.

This is a chicken/egg argument. Circulus in demonstrando.

Your use of Latin does not intimidate me.

What your logic ignores is the existence, attitudes, and practices of the Church itself.

Which do not attack other faiths, unless you can demonstrate otherwise... I'll refrain from a formal CFR here since you're having a hard time with the others.

It is a word, and it has meaning.

No, it's a derogatory term you and your friends made up. I find no instance of "Mopologetics" in any of the dictionaries I own, nor on any dictionaries online.

And these are the actual links to FARMS's 990 Forms from the late 1990s. They are a matter of public record:

Can't find anything more current than a decade ago?

Lol. I think that most readers need only to look at your silly and over-the-top outburst of "CFRs" to make a evaluation about the seriousness and legitimacy of your original requests. You ought to just say, "I love that the Mopologists are vicious smear-fiends" and be done with it.

You made claims. I expect you to back them up. You're credibility is really suffering here. As Darth J once told me: put up or shut up.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Hi there, oxygenadam. It's strange: you asked for your "CFR," I provided it, and you shift the goalposts and apparently didn't read the material I linked to. Shall I say, "Asked and answered"? These three CFRs---

The Maxwell Institute has a multi-million dollar budget.

Matt Roper actually gets paid to do apologetics. The same was apparently true of John Tvedtnes (now a SHIELDS "associate"!) when he worked for FARMS. Plus, DCP was once paid $20,000 to function as the Chair of FARMS. So: people really do get paid. I don't think this is a terribly controversial issue.

[quoteYou do know, don't you, that many of the apologists are paid to function as apologists?[/quote]

---were directly and/or partly addressed by the material I linked. You didn't bother to read it though, did you?

This remark is laughable:

And not an article from ten to fifteen years ago. This sentence is written in the present tense, I expect the source to be somewhat recent.

You do know the history of FARMS and its transition into becoming the Maxwell Institute, yes? And you understand how a once "maverick" Mopologetic instutition joining hands with a big, fundraising powerhouse like BYU might affect its budget, yes? You're just moving the goalposts. You wanted a reference, and I gave you an incontrovertible one.

Your fourth "CFR," by the way, can be addressed by way of DCP's "The Witchcraft Paradigm." He himself admits that the FARMS Review is "sui generis." (Boy, it's a good thing you're not intimidated by Latin.)

Oh, by the way, MI's mission statement says nothing about apologetics.

Lol. Wow. Maybe they should put a little asterisk on there for you with a footnote about the definition of "apologetics"---you know, since you've got your two dictionaries handy.

What your logic ignores is the existence, attitudes, and practices of the Church itself.

Which do not attack other faiths, unless you can demonstrate otherwise... I'll refrain from a formal CFR here since you're having a hard time with the others.

Wait a sec... Okay, this may explain a lot about you as a poster. Based on this, am I to assume that you never went through the pre-1990 endowment session, and that you're unaware of its contents? And that you're unfamiliar with BRM's remarks concerning the "Whore of Babylon," or DCP's condemnation of Calvinism? Perhaps you're just very young. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it would go a long ways towards explaining a lot of your views and argumentation on this thread.

No, it's a derogatory term you and your friends made up. I find no instance of "Mopologetics" in any of the dictionaries I own, nor on any dictionaries online.

Is "anti-Mormon" in any of your dictionaries? I *am* going to CFR you on this one. Go ahead and find the term in one of your aforementioned secular dictionaries. I'll be waiting patiently for you to enlighten me. I sure hope you find it! After all, how horrible it would be for you to be forced to admit that you and the apologists have been using a "made up" word to tar all critics of the Church. Gee, you'd have to admit to gross hypocrisy as well!

[_oxygenadam]

Hi there, oxygenadam. It's strange: you asked for your "CFR," I provided it, and you shift the goalposts and apparently didn't read the material I linked to. Shall I say, "Asked and answered"? These three CFRs-

I asked for a reference to this:

The Maxwell Institute has a multi-million dollar budget.

A thread is not a reference. The Guidestar links did not work. I searched Guidestar myself with the following search terms:

BYU FARMS
FARMS
Maxwell Institute
Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship
Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies

All searches yielded no results.

This CFR has not been satisfied.

I asked for a reference to this:

Matt Roper actually gets paid to do apologetics. The same was apparently true of John Tvedtnes (now a SHIELDS "associate"!) when he worked for FARMS. Plus, DCP was once paid $20,000 to function as the Chair of FARMS. So: people really do get paid. I don't think this is a terribly controversial issue.

A thread is not a source. If you want to stand by this claim, you must back it up. To date, you have not.

You do know the history of FARMS and its transition into becoming the Maxwell Institute, yes? And you understand how a once "maverick" Mopologetic instutition joining hands with a big, fundraising powerhouse like BYU might affect its budget, yes? You're just moving the goalposts. You wanted a reference, and I gave you an incontrovertible one

You gave me four links that didn't work, and a link to a thread on your own message board. If you think this qualifies as a reference, you certainly have a skewed view of scholarship.

Your fourth "CFR," by the way, can be addressed by way of DCP's "The Witchcraft Paradigm." He himself admits that the FARMS Review is "sui generis." (Boy, it's a good thing you're not intimidated by Latin.)

Doctor Scratch, do you even read what you reference? Of course the review is sui generis. It's a review. This is talking about The FARMS review only and not it's other work. Anyone with any semblance of intelligence would understand that the FARMS review is a review. It doesn't create new scholarship, its a review. The arguments you make are more damning to your own position than any I make.

Based on this, am I to assume that you never went through the pre-1990 endowment session, and that you're unaware of its contents? And that you're unfamiliar with BRM's remarks concerning the "Whore of Babylon," or DCP's condemnation of Calvinism?

I gave away my age at the beginning of this thread. You know better than to try and discuss the temple with a TBM.

But please, show me where DCP published "The Maze of Calvinism," or "Calvinism, Shadow or Reality," or another anti-Calvinist work. He didn't. He doesn't attack other faiths. And be very careful to read what you link me to before you find some obscure article that DCP wrote that you think supports your position, because the way things have been going for you, it won't.

Is "anti-Mormon" in any of your dictionaries? I *am* going to CFR you on this one.

It doesn't work that way. First, you must satisfy my CFRs.

But just a hint: anti is a common prefix that can be applied to many words, making them compound words. "Mo" is not.

Mormonism is a word that can have a suffix attached to it, like "anti" or "pro." "pologetics" is not. Therefore "Mopologetics" is most certainly a made up word.

Edit: I actually own three dictionaries. One is Latin-English, so that I can translate your intimidation attempts.

[_Doctor Scratch]

A thread is not a reference. The Guidestar links did not work.

Well, then, I suggest you go to the thread I linked, and click on the links there. Scroll down to the post from Rollo Tomasi. That should resolve the problem your having. I double-checked myself to see whether the link worked, and it did. Here, try again:

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/1 ... 60-1-9.pdf

I notice that the total assets for FARMS in 1998 was almost 7 million dollars.

You do know the history of FARMS and its transition into becoming the Maxwell Institute, yes? And you understand how a once "maverick" Mopologetic instutition joining hands with a big, fundraising powerhouse like BYU might affect its budget, yes? You're just moving the goalposts. You wanted a reference, and I gave you an incontrovertible one

You gave me four links that didn't work, and a link to a thread on your own message board.

Well, the link to the thread contains the exact same links. I cut and pasted them out of that thread, in fact (which may explain why they didn't work). But the fact remains: they work on the original thread.

Your fourth "CFR," by the way, can be addressed by way of DCP's "The Witchcraft Paradigm." He himself admits that the FARMS Review is "sui generis." (Boy, it's a good thing you're not intimidated by Latin.)

Doctor Scratch, do you even read what you reference? Of course the review is sui generis. It's a review. This is talking about The FARMS review only and not it's other work. Anyone with any semblance of intelligence would understand that the FARMS review is a review. It doesn't create new scholarship, its a review. The arguments you make are more damning to your own position than any I make.

Huh? I thought your CFR was about FARMS abiding by the normal standards of scholarship (especially peer review). But, it's clear that you haven't read the article.

Based on this, am I to assume that you never went through the pre-1990 endowment session, and that you're unaware of its contents? And that you're unfamiliar with BRM's remarks concerning the "Whore of Babylon," or DCP's condemnation of Calvinism?

I gave away my age at the beginning of this thread. You know better than to try and discuss the temple with a TBM.

I'm delighted that you've admitted that you're operating from a position of ignorance. But the fact remains that the temple included a gratuitous smear on protestant Christianity.

But please, show me where DCP published "The Maze of Calvinism," or "Calvinism, Shadow or Reality," or another anti-Calvinist work. He didn't. He doesn't attack other faiths. And be very careful to read what you link me to before you find some obscure article that DCP wrote that you think supports your position, because the way things have been going for you, it won't.

So, am I to take it yet again that you're unfamiliar with the material I mentioned? Yes or no?

Is "anti-Mormon" in any of your dictionaries? I *am* going to CFR you on this one.

It doesn't work that way.

Right. So it's not in there. Point taken. "anti-Mormon" is a "made-up word."

Mormonism is a word that can have a suffix attached to it, like "anti" or "pro."

"Anti-" and "pro-" are both prefixes, oxygenadam.

Therefore "Mopologetics" is most certainly a made up word.

"Bling Bling" and "gaydar" are arguably "made up" words, too, and yet there in the Oxford English Dictionary.

Well, OA, I enjoyed kicking your butt.

[_Darth J]

"Bling Bling" and "gaydar" are arguably "made up" words, too, and yet there in the Oxford English Dictionary.

"Muggle" is also in the Oxford English Dictionary.

Who do you think would win a wuss contest between Harry Potter and Edward Cullen?

I know, it's hard to say.

[_Chap]

Leaving to one side other issues in the discussion above, can we just agree on one point at least?

Dictionaries of the English language nowadays simply set themselves the task of capturing the language as it actually is (and in some cases, what it has been as well). They do not set out to define what the language ought to be. Once a word has sufficient currency to come into the compilers' radar, it is in.

It is therefore misguided to criticize the use of a word such as 'Mopologetics' on the ground that it is a 'made-up' word that is not currently to be found in any English dictionary. All words are in some sense at least ultimately 'made-up', and if a word gets used enough, it will end up in a dictionary whatever its origins may be.