This is a very interesting thread. Here's a personal anecdote:
I returned from my LDS Mission to my home in Salt Lake City in 1985. Within a week or so after returning, I received a call from the Church Office Building. I was flattered to receive a call from them. They said that they often recruited recently returned missionaries to come work in the COB -- before they got too busy with school and work. They asked me to come up and volunteer there for a while. I agreed to go.
When I arrived, my assignment was explained to me. The task was to track down members that had moved or otherwise become "lost." They needed to be located so their membership records could be forwarded. This was all done by telephone. I was to call every known relative, previous known phone numbers, any other leads, etc. to try and find anyone who knew the person and where they might be so their membership records could be forwarded on to their new ward. I felt like a detective.
They taught me some really great tricks (pre-internet, 1985) on how to get phone numbers; information that served me well over the years when I needed to find a number. They also told us not to give out too much information about who we were and what we wanted.
Although I appreciated the need for members' records to be forwarded to their current ward, I soon discovered that some people didn't want to be found. I felt a little uneasy about the job, and didn't volunteer for very long.
It was a strange experience.
Bates
Last edited by Guest on Thu Apr 10, 2008 7:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
rcrocket wrote:Waiting, waiting for proof for your assertion that BYU Spy Ring is a phrase used with the purported homosexual purges. This is one I want to see.
Read the article at my last link above -- it's pretty obvious BYU was spying on suspected homosexuals.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Mister Scratch wrote:Wow, you really have sunk pretty low, Nehor, having to rely on name-calling of this nature. I know that I have never stooped to such lows as trying to label an opponent a "pedophile" in order to try and score a point. This must be one of those moments where you feel on the verge of needing to step away, eh? I.e., that your frustration and nebbishness are getting the better of you?
No, I'm currently beating my nebbishness to death with a large wooden stick so I'm getting the better of it. It is true you've never accused anyone of being a pedophile. Calling someone an anti-Semite is more your style.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
The Nehor wrote:Please stop calling me 'my dear'. It creeps me out.
Scratch is a woman. Deal with it.
Serious? I think I just might buy into that theory.
Does it matter?
What's it to you?
You add nothing to this board.
I can't tell you how much that means to me.
One moment in annihilation's waste, one moment, of the well of life to taste- The stars are setting and the caravan starts for the dawn of nothing; Oh, make haste! -Omar Khayaam
Mister Scratch wrote:Wow, you really have sunk pretty low, Nehor, having to rely on name-calling of this nature. I know that I have never stooped to such lows as trying to label an opponent a "pedophile" in order to try and score a point. This must be one of those moments where you feel on the verge of needing to step away, eh? I.e., that your frustration and nebbishness are getting the better of you?
No, I'm currently beating my nebbishness to death with a large wooden stick so I'm getting the better of it. It is true you've never accused anyone of being a pedophile. Calling someone an anti-Semite is more your style.
Yes, that's correct, since I actually had evidence to support that label. Where's your evidence, Nehor? And moreover, why are you still sore over that Bill Hamblin episode?
rcrocket wrote:For good reason, I can see. Trafficking in perceptions is a good way to be critical without any support.
Oh, there is plenty of evidence out there that the LDS Church has done things like collect intelligence on polygamists, critics, etc. That, coupled with the not-necessarily-accurate perception that they were connected with more troubling things is what creates fear of the organization--fear that is not *completely* unreasonable. Do your own homework, Bob. Your request for "citations" is simply a species of denial. When we provide you the sources, you say they aren't good enough. You don't care to know whether your opponents have a point. If you were to admit that they do, you would only be discomfiting yourself in a way you obviously aren't prepared to be. In other words, you are generally very uncritical yourself. You can't be truly critical. Just admit it.
You're just weak. It is not unreasonable for somebody to ask for the very best cite to support an assertion. It is unreasonable to respond with: Do you homework, or it doesn't matter what I cite, you'll reject it.
I am interested in two of your assertions, however. What is the very best cite for the proposition that a Church committee currently ferrets out and excommunicates homosexuals, and what is your very best cite for the proposition that stake presidents are told to lie about it? Is there truth to these assertions? Do you have some primary sources rather than just suppositional essays?
rcrocket wrote:For good reason, I can see. Trafficking in perceptions is a good way to be critical without any support.
Oh, there is plenty of evidence out there that the LDS Church has done things like collect intelligence on polygamists, critics, etc. That, coupled with the not-necessarily-accurate perception that they were connected with more troubling things is what creates fear of the organization--fear that is not *completely* unreasonable. Do your own homework, Bob. Your request for "citations" is simply a species of denial. When we provide you the sources, you say they aren't good enough. You don't care to know whether your opponents have a point. If you were to admit that they do, you would only be discomfiting yourself in a way you obviously aren't prepared to be. In other words, you are generally very uncritical yourself. You can't be truly critical. Just admit it.
You're just weak. It is not unreasonable for somebody to ask for the very best cite to support an assertion. It is unreasonable to respond with: Do you homework, or it doesn't matter what I cite, you'll reject it.
I am interested in two of your assertions, however. What is the very best cite for the proposition that a Church committee currently ferrets out and excommunicates homosexuals, and what is your very best cite for the proposition that stake presidents are told to lie about it? Is there truth to these assertions? Do you have some primary sources rather than just suppositional essays?
Hey, Bob---where's your evidence that the "Spy Ring" was student-run? What's your "best cite"? I will be waiting patiently for you to enlighten me.