Who has been where I am? Questioning. Where did you end up?

[Physics Guy]

There are hundreds of examples of Bagley and Brooks doing the same sort of editing work in their books, as well as examples of my own work in publications of my own.

Editing is one thing; changing a quote to help your argument is another.

You see, Bob, I knew that Rollo was really the better man to tackle your "manipulation of sources" problem.

Had I included the material, it would have made my argument marginally stronger.

I really think that is not necessary to ask FARMS for a retraction; particularly since my article has undergone rigorous scrutiny by experts.

LOL!!! What, DCP and his cadre of "yes men"? I don't think so, Bob.

Flaws have been found (two typos on dates, for example; a typo on "first" when "second" should have been used, and things like that). Not a one -- not one -- has identified the supposed flaw you rely upon to charge me with professional dishonesty and, in Scratch's case, grounds for a reason to contact my stake president. Anonymously, I might add.

You two really have such great courage. I really feel sorry for the two of you. Beating up on living people with reputations to defend behind the essential equivalence of a hooded mask.

rcrocket

Let's step back a moment here. Which is worse: making anonymous commentary about writings which were made public via posting to the Web? Or gossiping about a person's private sex life in an effort to smear that person and make him seem like a sinner? Who's really in the wrong here, Bob? Even supposing your rumor about Quinn is true, doesn't your reportage essentially place you in the same shoes as the drooling paparazzo looking to cash in on the salacious photo he's just snapped?

[_asbestosman]

I think it is far worse to accept bad thinking than to oppose leaders who are in error.

I actually agree with that sentiment. I just feel like it is my duty to silently reject bad thinking and have faith that things will clarified later if necessary.

by the way, for me 'evil speaking' would be something like slander and/or libel, not saying "I don't agree with what Elder X did or said, when....," nor satire, nor parody.

In general I would agree. I have to disagree though as I have heard that criticism of LDS leaders is wrong even if that criticism is true. That seems a bit more encompassing than slander or libel which as I understand is only applicable with falsehoods.

Yes, I don't think we'll ever agree, but I will still be interested in that article. Thanks

[_Trevor]

I actually agree with that sentiment. I just feel like it is my duty to silently reject bad thinking and have faith that things will clarified later if necessary.

Yeah, I thought so, which is cool. I didn't make the same choice, but I can understand.

In general I would agree. I have to disagree though as I have heard that criticism of LDS leaders is wrong even if that criticism is true. That seems a bit more encompassing than slander or libel which as I understand is only applicable with falsehoods.

Yes, I don't think we'll ever agree, but I will still be interested in that article. Thanks

If I find it, I will certainly give you the reference.

[_rcrocket]

I really think that is not necessary to ask FARMS for a retraction; particularly since my article has undergone rigorous scrutiny by experts.

LOL!!! What, DCP and his cadre of "yes men"? I don't think so, Bob.

Let me replace the word "experts" in my sentence with "critics of my published piece who are experts in their field." Bagley to name one, who has been made many comments about my piece in several public venues.

Let's step back a moment here. Which is worse: making anonymous commentary about writings which were made public via posting to the Web? Or gossiping about a person's private sex life in an effort to smear that person and make him seem like a sinner? Who's really in the wrong here, Bob? Even supposing your rumor about Quinn is true, doesn't your reportage essentially place you in the same shoes as the drooling paparazzo looking to cash in on the salacious photo he's just snapped?

I think in your case, your threat to expose me to my stake president for so-called dishonesty in academic publications was plainly over the top and certainly libel coupled with an extortive threat. I consider that a pretty serious breach of ethics, and certainly as an anonymous poster, a demonstrable lack of integrity. But, based upon your continuing anonymity and your style on this board, somehow I just don't think that you are bothered or worried one bit. I am sure as you have noted by now, you can't push my buttons with your continued assaults upon my reputation.

But, I would respectfully request that you think about not trashing my professional reputation and integrity so frequently. I have a profession and a family. I have children who know I post here. I like coming on this Board to learn from opposing points of views and maybe even learn new facts or theories.

Finally, there is no drooling going on here when I step in to defend Dr. Peterson to point out that Dr. Quinn outed himself publicly to his colleagues many years before you charge Dr. Peterson of outing him with gossip. I was there. I saw it first hand. You can call me a liar, but I sign my posts with my name and you do not.

rcrocket

[_Roger Morrison]

Thanks Sunstoned, I like that too. Not surprised it originated with Moksha. He has to be THE level-head and open-heart amongst us. Now, IF LDSism accepted nominations, as others churches do, eh ... Maybe too personal Mok, but what church positions have you held? Do now? Warm regards, Roger

Roger, I'm just fortunate they let me in the door on Sunday.

"Au contraire, mon ami, Mok." THEY are fortunate that You lighten Their doorway... Warm regards, Roger :-)

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi mms, you wrote:

I have definitely read and considered the posts above, but I have enormous trouble with the idea that these responses can be true and the church can be good for me at the same time. If I believed/ultimately concluded what Moksha does (aside from her conclusion that the church assists her in her spiritual path), there would be no compelling reason whatsoever for me to retain my membership in the church in my opinion. (Bold added by RM)

Might you have answered your own dillema? Mok attends for his reason. Which seems to suit him just fine. OK! Because THE Church ain't true, that does not by default ;-) make it no-good for anything to every body. I'm going out on a limb here: That TBMs and the heiarchy solemnly declare, "IT IS THE ONLY TRUE CHURCH, AND THE WAY TO "GOD" IN HEAVEN," is what identifies it as a cult. OK.

Their statement is totally Cultish. "WE da one!!!" Ya gotta stop and THINK about that... But, so be it. 'Cult' is simply a label afixed to a group with certain characteristics. LDSism displays most, if not all of them. Didn't stop me from joining. Didn't make me leave. We/I joined cuz i wanted to for our, purposes at the time--and those wunerful Mishies--I/we left when our needs were met. "The whole need not a physician."

No regrets for joining--except waking up to the evil of barring our parents from our daughters' weddings. Probably instrumental in concluding, "it's just another church, with lots of good people. But, it just isn't what we thought it was. "Good for them, but not for us." OK..

mms, i encourage you to reread Truth Dancer's post, back a few, re Moksha's. One has to loose themselves from the other ties that tend to bind. All at their (your) own time. Procrastinate not your day of joy, service, coming, or going. Your decision. Happy future, wherever... Warm regards, Roger

[_Trevor]

Yes, I don't think we'll ever agree, but I will still be interested in that article. Thanks

Asbestosman,

I have been unable to find the article, and I am beginning to think that I have conflated some comments by Hinckley with the following Ensign article written by a lowly home teacher:

http://www.LDS.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=df49dbdcc370c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

Or, August, 1996, "The Spiritual Hazards of Faultfinding," by Mark D. Hamilton.

Boy is my face red. You might enjoy the read all the same, even if it does not bear the imprimature of prophetic authority.

[_asbestosman]

I have been unable to find the article, and I am beginning to think that I have conflated some comments by Hinckley with the following Ensign article written by a lowly home teacher:

http://www.LDS.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=df49dbdcc370c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

Or, August, 1996, "The Spiritual Hazards of Faultfinding," by Mark D. Hamilton.

Boy is my face red. You might enjoy the read all the same, even if it does not bear the imprimature of prophetic authority.

That was indeed an interesting article. I'll have to contemplate my own fault-finding. Maybe it'll be more ok if I at least find faults with myself too? ;)

On the one hand I can see how being critical of people will tend to produce ill feelings. On the other hand, I think that criticising people can be a good thing. We condemn the actions of Pol Pot, Adolf Hitler, and so on for a reason. Perhaps the difference is that they are public figures. I criticize teachers as well, but the intent is generally to warn other would-be students.

[_harmony]

Perhaps the difference is that they are public figures.

So are the 12, the FP, the General Boards, the 70's. All public figures. All human. All susceptible to human failing. None of them have a direct conduit to God.

[_Mister Scratch]

I really think that is not necessary to ask FARMS for a retraction; particularly since my article has undergone rigorous scrutiny by experts.

LOL!!! What, DCP and his cadre of "yes men"? I don't think so, Bob.

Let me replace the word "experts" in my sentence with "critics of my published piece who are experts in their field." Bagley to name one, who has been made many comments about my piece in several public venues.

Oh, really? Bagley has subjected your piece to "rigorous scrutiny"? I hope you are not stepping yet again into a trap of self-embarrassment, Bob. A simple questin: Is Bagley aware of your elipsis, and the way it changed the meaning of the quote? Y/N? Feel free, by the way, to quote the place where he mentions that he "should have used the letter."

Let's step back a moment here. Which is worse: making anonymous commentary about writings which were made public via posting to the Web? Or gossiping about a person's private sex life in an effort to smear that person and make him seem like a sinner? Who's really in the wrong here, Bob? Even supposing your rumor about Quinn is true, doesn't your reportage essentially place you in the same shoes as the drooling paparazzo looking to cash in on the salacious photo he's just snapped?

I think in your case, your threat to expose me to my stake president for so-called dishonesty in academic publications was plainly over the top and certainly libel coupled with an extortive threat.

Hmm. Let's break this down.

1) Where did I ever make an actual, definitive "threat" that I would "out" you to your SP?
2) Given how much you demand that others who post anonymously "out" themselves, doesn't this make you a rank hypocrite?
3) There is nothing libelous about my assertion that you distorted evidence in your article. That is simply my honest, professional assessment, Bob.
4) How can my mere suggestion that this distortion be shown to your SP be considered "extortive"? Do you not believe in the Plan of Salvation? For you to continue living your life in sin puts not only your own, but your wife's and children's eternal future in jeopardy. Perhaps you should volunteer the information to the SP yourself, Bishop Crocket.

I consider that a pretty serious breach of ethics,

Nothing I have ever done here or anywhere else comes anywhere near as close as you extremely unethical distortion of a source; nor is it as bad as your gross gossipmongering.

and certainly as an anonymous poster, a demonstrable lack of integrity. But, based upon your continuing anonymity and your style on this board, somehow I just don't think that you are bothered or worried one bit. I am sure as you have noted by now, you can't push my buttons with your continued assaults upon my reputation.

But, I would respectfully request that you think about not trashing my professional reputation and integrity so frequently. I have a profession and a family. I have children who know I post here.

What? Are you serious? Your kids post on this message board? How intriguing! Who are they, if you don't mind my asking?

I like coming on this Board to learn from opposing points of views and maybe even learn new facts or theories.

Actually, it seems more like you come to the board in order to dole out hypocritical lectures to people.

Finally, there is no drooling going on here when I step in to defend Dr. Peterson to point out that Dr. Quinn outed himself publicly to his colleagues many years before you charge Dr. Peterson of outing him with gossip. I was there. I saw it first hand. You can call me a liar, but I sign my posts with my name and you do not.

rcrocket

This was a private, personal matter. It still is. Do I report about your personal activities on this board, Bob? No. The only thing I have ever remarked up vis-a-vis you (or DCP, for that matter), is your writing. See: that's what separates me from the likes of you and The Good Professor. I draw a line as far as a person's private life is concerned. No reportage of who you and DCP or whomever else is purportedly "holding hands with." But you have no compunctions in "dishing" this sort of vile stuff. Shame, shame on you, Bishop!