Apologists lying and Scratch

[_beastie]

Obviously, there have been a lot of threads about this epic event, and I may have missed someone making this very point. But I'm going to say it anyway because it's been bugging me.

The one thing that is crystal clear in all this mess is that apologists have been knowingly lying about Scratch's intel regarding the schism within LDS apologetics.

Scratch has been sharing this intel for years - that there is a serious divide within the apologetic community, reaching to the levels of apostles, in regards to how to best handle apologia. The apologists - and I use that term deliberately, because I mean people like DCP and Scott Lloyd, who knew the truth, versus the run-of-the-mill defender of the faith not associated with FARMS who knew as little as the rest of us - have consistently lied in response. In the heat of their anger, DCP and Hamblin have both made statements that verify that Scratch's intel was correct. And they lied about it for years.

The hard reality of life is that once you've been exposed as a deliberate liar, it is difficult for other people to trust your statements again. I have, perhaps naïvely, in the past trusted that they were telling the truth about these things. I just couldn't bring myself to picture them as deliberate liars. Most of the time, I could deal with their factually incorrect statements by understanding the power of confirmation bias and belief. No deliberate lying had to be invoked. But this case is quite different. The lying has been deliberate.

I remember a while ago when Scratch asked me to post on MAD and ask Scott (was it Lloyd or Gordon? I think Lloyd, but not sure.) if he had met with a certain apostle. (which, of course, ended up sending several apologists/defenders of faith straight into apoplexy) I trusted Scott when he flat out said "no". Case closed, I thought. Scratch's intel was wrong.

Now I believe he was probably lying about that just as he was lying about other things.

If I were a run-of-the-mill defender of the faith, discovering how the apologists have been deliberately lying all these years would bother me. It would make me question every other thing they've ever said.

Now, I haven't agreed with Scratch's tactics, in particular his extreme focus on DCP, and I still don't. But it's clear he's always understood the apologists better than I ever have, and I stand corrected in that regard.

[_beastie]

In addition, Shades's observation, years ago, that the MADdites were more about defending apologists than defending the church, has also been proven to be correct. The truth of that observation is easily seen in the extreme reactions of many MADdites.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Hi, Beastie.

I admit that I've been surprised to learn that pretty much all of the past intel has seemingly been true. Dan Peterson slipped up and admitted this in his email, but in a post on MDD in the wake of all that, he insisted yet again that "most" of the intel has been "laughably wrong." But these guys can't keep their stories straight, because on his blog, Hamblin blames Jerry Bradford for allowing "leaks" that have been going on for "months or years."

I was always skeptical about the "intel" I was sent--part of my rationale in posting it was to try and confirm whether or not it was true. (Plus, it usually made for provocative discussion.) But the apologists' flat dismissals about all of it made me wonder. Now we can see just how dishonest they've been. Maybe I need to go back and assemble a summary of all the MI-related material I was told. One that is immediately popping into mind is the claim that Brant Gardner was going to be the target of several hit pieces. I hope he reads this thread.

And what you're remembering, Beastie, was a question that was posed to Scott Gordon of FAIR. Supposedly, Elder Oaks went to go visit him in order to tell him that FAIR would need to curtail its ad hominem treatment of critics. At first they were stone-silent on this issue; then Gordon reluctantly admitted that, in fact, he *had* met with Oaks, but that it was for a relatively banal, normal-Church-business-related reason. So was he lying? I don't know.

The apologists have given me a lot of grief over the years--claiming that I was making all this up, or that the informants were just "voices in my head." Will they now do the right thing and admit they were wrong? I rather doubt it.

As for the "extreme focus" on DCP: I don't think that's an accurate characterization of my posting over the last few years. I think you could say that it was true early on, closely following in the wake of my getting booted off the old FAIRboard thanks to DCP. If you read my posts from the past few years, yes it's true that you'll see some threads that are specifically focused on DCP, but I think that I've been more broadly concerned with toxic Mopologetics. Of course, Dan himself has tried mightily to demonize me and to portray me as a "malevolent stalker." I would just urge you and others to read my actual posts and threads, rather than buying into his demonology.

[_Infymus]

Peterson lied for years saying he was never, ever paid for his apologetic work. We now find out otherwise. He was paid. And people like Liz here defend him, saying what a good man he is, what a good family man he is. All the years Peterson was calling me a liar for material I posed on the MC. Seems to me that Peterson is nothing more than what he accused me of being all these years.

[_Shulem]

LDS apologists really are liars. They are doing it for the Lord. If Joseph Smith can lie (example: Facsimile Explanations), why can't the apologists? It all makes perfect sense.

Keep up the good work, Dr. Scratch. Now that they are down it's time to kick em hard.

And thanks for your post, Beastie.

Paul O

[_Uther]

Seems like pants down, hand in the jar, stuck in the muck, foot in the mouth, can come in as handy descriptions..

[_beastie]

Hi, Beastie.

I admit that I've been surprised to learn that pretty much all of the past intel has seemingly been true. Dan Peterson slipped up and admitted this in his email, but in a post on MDD in the wake of all that, he insisted yet again that "most" of the intel has been "laughably wrong." But these guys can't keep their stories straight, because on his blog, Hamblin blames Jerry Bradford for allowing "leaks" that have been going on for "months or years."

I think that the "laughably wrong" and the claim that he knows someone who feeds you false intel are just saving face lies.

Sorry, DCP, if you're reading this, but I have no other choice but to believe you're lying about this, just like you've lied for years about the veracity of Scratch's intel on the schism in the apologetic community.

I was always skeptical about the "intel" I was sent--part of my rationale in posting it was to try and confirm whether or not it was true. (Plus, it usually made for provocative discussion.) But the apologists' flat dismissals about all of it made me wonder. Now we can see just how dishonest they've been. Maybe I need to go back and assemble a summary of all the MI-related material I was told. One that is immediately popping into mind is the claim that Brant Gardner was going to be the target of several hit pieces. I hope he reads this thread.

Yes, I know that, despite some who claim otherwise, you always have preached caution in regards to these claims.

It makes me wonder, as well, although I have a hard time understanding why Brant would be a target. Maybe he's too fair? He will debunk some of the popular nonsense, like the Quetzalcoatl LDS myth. Maybe they don't like that.

And what you're remembering, Beastie, was a question that was posed to Scott Gordon of FAIR. Supposedly, Elder Oaks went to go visit him in order to tell him that FAIR would need to curtail its ad hominem treatment of critics. At first they were stone-silent on this issue; then Gordon reluctantly admitted that, in fact, he *had* met with Oaks, but that it was for a relatively banal, normal-Church-business-related reason. So was he lying? I don't know.

The apologists have given me a lot of grief over the years--claiming that I was making all this up, or that the informants were just "voices in my head." Will they now do the right thing and admit they were wrong? I rather doubt it.

Of course they won't.

As for the "extreme focus" on DCP: I don't think that's an accurate characterization of my posting over the last few years. I think you could say that it was true early on, closely following in the wake of my getting booted off the old FAIRboard thanks to DCP. If you read my posts from the past few years, yes it's true that you'll see some threads that are specifically focused on DCP, but I think that I've been more broadly concerned with toxic Mopologetics. Of course, Dan himself has tried mightily to demonize me and to portray me as a "malevolent stalker." I would just urge you and others to read my actual posts and threads, rather than buying into his demonology.

You are correct, I paid more attention at the beginning. I simply haven't had the time lately, so I may have overlooked your later change in focus. And you are also right, that Dan's demonology has become such a pervasive story it's hard not to be affected by it.

[_beastie]

Peterson lied for years saying he was never, ever paid for his apologetic work. We now find out otherwise. He was paid. And people like Liz here defend him, saying what a good man he is, what a good family man he is. All the years Peterson was calling me a liar for material I posed on the MC. Seems to me that Peterson is nothing more than what he accused me of being all these years.

I think he probably is a good family man who behaves decently and morally in general. I think that it's quite possible and even likely that he simply uses a different moral code when dealing with evil apostates. (see Paul's comment re: Lying for the Lord)

LDS apologists really are liars. They are doing it for the Lord. If Joseph Smith can lie (example: Facsimile Explanations), why can't the apologists? It all makes perfect sense.

Yes, it does. It was just hard for me to accept on a personal level about people I "knew" (online). I rarely assume a person is outright lying, when there is so much evidence that motivated reasoning/confirmation bias are more than adequate explanations, but I see no other possibility in this case. They were lying. And yes, they probably felt justified lying for the Lord.

I imagine even now they're telling themselves that the Bradfords of the world just don't know the evil (apostates) they're up against, and how it is necessary to be an aggressive warrior in the face of such evil.

Seems like pants down, hand in the jar, stuck in the muck, foot in the mouth, can come in as handy descriptions..

Indeed.

[_Aristotle Smith]

It makes me wonder, as well, although I have a hard time understanding why Brant would be a target. Maybe he's too fair? He will debunk some of the popular nonsense, like the Quetzalcoatl LDS myth. Maybe they don't like that.

His latest book, which I highly recommend if you have the time, kicks the stool out from under many apologetic theories. He summarily nukes chiasmus and many other types of linguistic based "proofs" for the veracity of the Book of Mormon. He also gives Royal Skousen's latest theories about "tight control" some serious blows as well.

But this isn't really the focus of the book. Brant also accepts many other arguments that critics have been making for years, but uses them to try and understand the Book of Mormon text better. For instance, he just accepts at face value that the translation was done via seer stone and that a literal or tight translation simply doesn't fly. But then he uses this to try and understand the method of translation better and to understand the Book of Mormon better. I think this acceptance of facts, in an attempt to understand the text better from a faithful LDS point of view (and not superimpose various modern theories on the text), really nukes a lot of FARMS theories.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Well, I'll just say again that, obviously, I don't know for certain that they were planning to kick the crap out of Gardner. But in light of all this recent information, I think that the odd are very high that the "intel" was accurate.