Morgan Davis and the "Plot" to Destroy FARMS

[_Rosebud]

Strategy 3 for Res:

Realize that you’re an anonymous poster on a message board, that you have no inherent right to information, and that Rosebud has a different set of objectives than you. Remember that Rosebud is stubborn and is going to do things her own way no matter what you do or say. Remember that Rosebud has already told you to wait for the future to happen and that she is going to show you what is important to her, if you’re interested, rather than tell you.

Remember that not everyone is a historian and not everyone needs to be a historian for historians to do their work and for people to get answers. Remember that when serious historians get involved and examine real evidence, people won’t have to rely on the loud mouths (Lou, Dan and John) to tell the story. Remember that not everybody is a loud mouth who wants to shove their own version of events down other people’s throats. Remember that some people would like a professional and thorough job done and would like all sides to be heard, not just their own.

Remember that there are things that are far more important than the dissolution of an institute that bears an “important” man’s name. I tend to think that the most important people in the world are children, not men who have other men fawning over them. I have my own, more important, things to address and tend to.

Patience.

Narcissist, thy name is Rosebud.

I came back this afternoon to tell you how lame it is to bring in mental illness when you're insulting people. Calling people delusional, labeling them as narcissists and telling them to up their meds crosses a line of decorum that is harmful to all people who are mentally ill. And to their families.

Getting back to the bigger picture and why I'm so mad about what the church is and isn't doing to solve its problems: while I've never been prescribed nor needed psychotropic drugs, I have a brother who suffers from very severe psychosis. I have spent countless hours comforting him as he experiences delusions, paranoia and associated suicidality. I do that to try to save his life. I am most likely going to fail. I have to think about that and think about how the child I knew is already gone. Someone who has never seen what real psychosis looks like ought to keep her mouth shut. Your insults are cheap.

It's because I've seen so much suffering that I do what I do. Does that make me a "narcissist" because I speak powerfully and I know where I'm going and why, or does that mean I have something authentic to share? You decide, but know that every time you insult me, you expose yourself... not me. Convince yourself that your insults won't make it into a history book if you'd like, but I was there in 2012. A lot that is significant occurred.

And a lot is still to occur.....

[Guest]

Good-bye, Rosebud. I hope you find whatever it is that will bring you peace.

Thank you. I believe I will. It is much better to be powerful and taking action than to be powerless and at the whims of those who want to hurt you.

And to best to you, Res. Although anonymously demanding what you want from someone you don't know who has never personally offended you and who has no obligations towards you is a dick thing to do. And it's a dick thing to be upset with someone for not giving you what you want because they have their own reasons.

In res ipsa's defense I didn't get that interpretation at all from his messages. (Not that the post needed defending, it was pretty obvious.)

[_Lemmie]

rosebud:

....Does that make me a "narcissist" because I speak powerfully and I know where I'm going and why, or does that mean I have something authentic to share?

that's not why I think you are narcissistic, but it certainly adds to the evidence. You don't come across as speaking "powerfully." Delusionally, yes.

rosebud:

You decide, but know that every time you insult me, you expose yourself... not me. Convince yourself that your insults won't make it into a history book if you'd like, but I was there in 2012. A lot that is significant occurred.

oh my, no. You're the narcissist, not me. I have no delusions that anything I say to you will be in a history book.

And seriously, with respect to the issues of 2012 that involve the Maxwell institute, it's about as delusional as a narcissist can get to believe that you "were there" for the history books to record. If you "were there," someone would have mentioned it before now.

[_Rosebud]

In res ipsa's defense I didn't get that interpretation at all from his messages.

Allow people to speak for themselves.

[_Lemmie]

In res ipsa's defense I didn't get that interpretation at all from his messages.

Allow people to speak for themselves.

[_Rosebud]

rosebud:

....Does that make me a "narcissist" because I speak powerfully and I know where I'm going and why, or does that mean I have something authentic to share?

that's not why I think you are narcissistic, but it certainly adds to the evidence. You don't come across as speaking "powerfully." Delusionally, yes.

rosebud:

You decide, but know that every time you insult me, you expose yourself... not me. Convince yourself that your insults won't make it into a history book if you'd like, but I was there in 2012. A lot that is significant occurred.

oh my, no. You're the narcissist, not me. I have no delusions that anything I say to you will be in a history book.

And seriously, with respect to the issues of 2012 that involve the Maxwell institute, it's about as delusional as a narcissist can get to believe that you "were there" for the history books to record. If you "were there," someone would have mentioned it before now.

You’re intentionally being thick to try to make a point. I am done with the insincere games message board posters play. I will no longer be pressing the link to see your posts (as I still have you on ignore).

[_Lemmie]

rosebud:

You’re intentionally being thick to try to make a point. I am done with the insincere games message board posters play. I will no longer be pressing the link to see your posts (as I still have you on ignore).

This is interesting. I am "intentionally" misunderstanding, and playing "insincere games" because I disagree with your self-assessment of how important you are, but you want historians to know that YOU are truthful and sincere. Do you not see the narcissism in that? (Not to mention the on-going delusion about historians noting your involvement. )

And last, since she's back to blocking opinions she doesn't like and can't control, rosebud doesn't seem to realize she is also a message board poster.

[_Res Ipsa]

In res ipsa's defense I didn't get that interpretation at all from his messages. (Not that the post needed defending, it was pretty obvious.)

Thank you, Lemmie. Defense wasn’t needed but is much appreciated.

[_Lemmie]

Yes, I see your point, the “Packer faction” information explains a lot.

I think that they are genuinely riled up over these latest revelations--both the documents from the "new" MI people, and the stuff Midgley has been saying. It's worth considering who the key "factions" at the moment are for them. Midgley has already supplied us with quite a few clues....

speaking of clues, Doctor Shades, did you see this?

Louis Midgley Dr. VelhoBurrinho 6 hours ago

VB keeps mentioning Latter-day Saint apologetics. Some wrongly believe that defending the faith is necessary, while others--for instance, everyone who posts Dr. Shades board--don't think it is possible. Both are wrong.

Somewhere in the Book of Mormon we are told that "Fools mock, but they will mourn." which is what I more than suggested when I glossed Dostoevsky.
There is nothing strange about Latter-day Saints defending their faith. The Greek word apologia, which means to defend something, as one would in a court by providing reasons--that is, evidence--supporting one's faith. Endowed Latter-day Saints make a solemn covenant to defend and build the Kingdom of God. And see all of D&C 123.

I have been asked by the Brethren to respond to violent critics of the Church of Jesus Christ. In one instance what I was asked to write was one of my most hard hitting essays. There is one harmless mistake about who edited what was called Paul Pry's Weekly Bulletin in that essay. Whoever published that rag was essentially the first one to blast away at Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon beginning in August 1829.

Grant Palmer, while on probation for teaching heresy, began working on what became his dreadful An Insider's View of Mormon Origins, which Signature Books published in 2002 immediately after he retired from what was then called CES. The fact is that in 1986 Palmer circulated his first draft of his book under the name Paul Pry Jr. He got caught for doing this, but not fired on the spot. Instead, he was allowed to visit the county jail as a kind of chaplain. He did some of that, but mostly worked on his book and played with his pigeons.

At the specific request of the one then in charge of what was then called CES, I wrote an essay entitled "Prying into Palmer," FARMS Review 15/2 (2002): 365-410. This essay was reviewed by, among others, Elder Eyring. There were no objections to that essay, or the others on Grant Palmer terrible book by Davis Bitton, James Allen, Mark Ashurst-McGee and Steve Harper, all of which were hard hitting and fully accurate. Elder Maxwell's wanted FARMS to no longer allow Slam Dunks! And Elder Holland has recently more than merely mentioned that fact, has he not?

There are two who continue to be employed by the Maxwell Institute, one of whom was involved with the purge, and the other one was brought on later by Jerry Bradford to do PR work. Both of these, but for different reasons, strongly object to truthful and accurate efforts to defend the faith and the Saints. In one case it is because they do not like our tone, whatever that is, and in the other because he insists that one should never ever be critical of anyone's ideology who still has their name on the records of the Church of Jesus Christ, even when they clearly mock Jesus Christ.

Hence I wonder what VB means when he mentions what he calls "LDS apologetics." I am not accusing him of anything, but merely asking him, if in the case of Grant Palmer, if Bitton, Allen, Ashurst-McGee, Harper and I were not fully justified in what we wrote. Or was our response to John Dehlin warranted and appropriate.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... 4762735371

Grant Palmer was considered a “violent” critic? The lds church leadership “commissions” Midgley’s virulent rabidity? If this is true, it is just one more reason to step away from the lds church.

Midgley’s hate-filled rancor and utter disdain for the people he treats as less than human simply for disagreeing with his particular religion is bad enough; if this is approved by lds leadership, shame on them.

[_moksha]

Grant Palmer was considered a “violent” critic? The LDS church leadership “commissions” Midgley’s virulent rabidity?

I have a hard time believing any Church officials (who were acting as disciples of Christ, rather than as mere functionaries) would have sanctioned or approved of such a rabid attack. Their scruples would not allow it. Nor would an actual academic journal have printed it. They would have found the methodology of interrogating Palmer's students, colleagues, neighbors, and fellow church members to be repugnant. Academic journals would have a line of decency demarcation that should not be crossed. They would not be a participant of yellow journalism to harm someone.