Church Surveillance

[_rcrocket]

Yeah, you just went off on some unhinged tear with no evidence.

I am overcome by the humility with which you excoriate me when I admit my mistakes and yet fail to acknowledge your own.

I acknowledge my errors all the time. I am not as smart or as educated as you are on many fronts, and I bow to your wisdom. You just want to eviscerate and gut anybody who humbly asks you to prove your point. I'm really sorry I have troubled you by making such a request. It was rude.

[_Coggins7]

A

personal message through this board.

Mister Scratch wrote:

Please note that Coggins has never even read any of Quinn's work. Please note also that he apparently believes that the BYU spy ring and stakeouts never happened! Perhaps he'll go running off to MAD in order to try and persuade one of the flunkies over there to supplement his "erudition."

Point of order: I've admitted, long ago, to having read excerpts and parts of Quinn's work, as well as extensive reviews of them. My views are based upon this, and, given the substance of what I've read and analyzed, I believe quite accurate. Further, unlike Scratch, who seems to read nothing but Quinn and Signature material, I have a very large library and a reading schedule that keeps me busy frying much more important fish than Quinn's historical trivial pursuit. I'm just finishing Rights and Duties, by Russel Kirk, and am just starting Unstoppable Global Warming, by S. Fred Singer. After that, I'll be hitting The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Empire, by Brian Corzier, and following that, I plan to read The Wretched of The Earth, by Franz Fanon. At some point, hopefully within the next few months, I'm going to work my way through, for the second time, Nibley's The Joseph Smith Papyrus, An Egyptian Endowment. So you see, I simply don't have time for Quinn. I'll take Bob's word, or DCP's, or another competent witness to fill in the gaps in my own knowledge of his work.

Meanwhile, while I'm working through all of this, Scratch will be rereading Extensions of Power for the 48th time, just to keep the skids greased.

Just how long was it before Fox News gave up on the fairy tale about WMD? When you talk to the true believers, you get pretty much the response you would expect.

Just as I thought. This is an indication, as I suspected, of a combination of carefully cultivated ignorance, a disdain for serious, balanced study, and a need to maintain ideological purity at the expense of fact.

Apparently you have never brothered reading the Kay, Duelfer, or Rob Silverman reports on the WMD situation in Iraq. We know the WMD was there, broken down, dismantled, hidden and scattered, the various programs to be reconstituted and reconstructed once the Oil for Food scam had done its work (as the French, Germans, Russians laughed all the way to the bank) and all inspectors finally left Iraq and the heat was off.

This is what can happen, Trevor, when you are actually educated as opposed to simply watching the CBS Evening News. You have a balanced understanding, as opposed to a simplistic ideological conception, of events.

The intelligence was bad, in many areas, and the WMD was not functional, and ready to use. It was, however, there all along, just as the intelligence claimed, and there is no reason to think that Saddam would not have used it had he been given the reprieve he deeded to reconstitute and continue his programs.

You cannot tell propaganda from real knowledge, but you think you can, and that bodes ill for the life of any mind...

[_beastie]

Trevor,

For your reference, here's the thread where GoodK talks about the email sent to his family.


http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... sc&start=0

[_Trevor]

While it's been a real hoot, I am off to a conference in 4.5 hours. So, naturally, I will be unable to carry on with this delightful little exchange for a few days. All the best to the lot of you.

[_GoodK]

By the way, now that the subject of my civility has been raised, it seems like the right time to add that Dr. Peterson has challenged my interpretation of the items listed below. I called this behavior despicable, and I said I had no doubt that Crocket and Dr. Peterson felt justified in what they were doing.

As an update, Dr. Peterson makes claims concerning what precipitated his actions that force me to concede that I cannot be certain that his actions were despicable, or that he felt some kind of self-righteous urge to strike back at GoodK. In short, I don't really know. So, I retract my judgment, admitting that I don't know enough to conclude what was really going on here. If it all was as Dr. Peterson represented to me, I would not characterize his actions as despicable.

As far as members harassing critics on the net, I think that the following constitutes harassment:

1 - letting a critic know that their identity is known by the believer
2 - telling that critic that the believer intends to send their posts to the critic's still believing family
3 - and, in one instance, actually doing so (although making an erroneous attribution in the process)

Crocket did 1 and 2 to GoodK. DCP did number 3 to GoodK.

Will Schryver also went on at length about his desire to find real identities of critics on the net in order to send that information to church leaders.

Critics post anonymously for good reason.

Naturally, I find such behavior despicable, and I have no doubt that the characters doing it feel completely justified.

T

I wouldn't say DCP's actions in regards to me are best described by the word despicable. I have no hard feelings for the guy. But he did send an email to my parents regarding my posts here on two separate occasions, not only the post referenced by Beastie but another post that Bob was involved in. If you need any clarification regarding the events that transpired between us feel free to PM me or post your questions here.

[_Mister Scratch]

Sure. Would you please supply text from the Prince book in which it's asserted that the BYU spy ring was "student-instigated"?

I'd say the story starts in detail at page 175; Wilkinson claims it was started by a student; student cracks under pressure and names a BYU administrator involved in the ring; three people, including my grandfather, appointed to ferret out the truth. I can't tell where the truth really lies today, but it appears students were the soldiers and in on its formation, the instigators. But, again, it doesn't matter. Admin was involved and they were to blame.

Oh, what, it doesn't matter now that you've been caught trying to dishonestly absolve the Church of wrongdoing? (It would be awfully nice if you were to actually transcribe a bit of text.) Here is your earlier post, Bob:

As to the BYU spying case, it is fairly well discussed elsewhere. I particularly found Gregory Prince's work on David O McKay a compelling read on the subject, naming names. The spy ring was instigated by students. Pres. Wilkinson (who denies commissioning it in his edited multivolume history of BYU) with a wink and a nod apparently listened to its results.

(emphasis added)

You have been implying all along that this was purely the doing of students in order to try and clear the Church and BYU administration of having anything to do with the spy ring. That's not very honest, counselor!

Actually, it does, since you have claimed repeatedly that this was "instigated" entirely by the students. This is important, since this claim is clearly meant to absolve the Church of any wrongdoing. But is it true? Please provide text from the Prince book, Bob.

I mentioned it once in passing and then again only as you brought it up. I know it as history because my family was involved and I have heard the story many times. I have interviewed professors involved. (They tell a different story than Prince.)

At this point, Bob, your interviews are worth about as much as your mysterious claim that you saw Quinn holding hands with a man back in the early 1980s.

But, the mention of student involvement has nothing to do with offering to absolve anybody of anything. The truth is that once the Church figured out what was going on it brought down the hammer.

But, again, that's not really true. There were (as you pointed out earlier in the thread) multiple spy rings, and multiple instances of various Church officials and representative engaged in espionage, spying on people, tailing them, and other cloak-and-dagger activities.

So please stop making an argument I have never made, and if you think I have argued that student instigation implies that somebody or something should be absolved, I retract any such argument.

Good for you.

He also had good reason to lie. Tell me, Bob---how well does his account square with others'?

Umm, as I have indicated, I think he did lie. But you can't study history to determine the truth without studying the words of the person most intimately involved. At least I read the books I cite, rather than do as you do, cite sources you don't have.

Oh? And where are the various "interview" sources, so that we can inspect them for accuracy? It seems you don't "have" any sources either, other than your highly problematic personal account. I mean, honestly, Bob: how accepting would you be if I stated that I'd interviewed a number of Church Security personnel, and that they told me that spying, phone-tapping, and other such acts had been going on, with First Presidency approval, for years?

How do you know it did not receive any kind of editorial or peer review, Bob? Or are you just guessing? Quinn's list of "thank yous" is mighty indeed, and it seems clear that significant portions of these texts were reviewed by Leonard Arrington, Jan Shipps, Dan Vogel, and others.

I think this proves a point I have made several times. You are not an academic and do not know a thing about academic publications by this very comment of yours. Not that I think that one has to be an academic to say something intelligent, but when it comes to the concept of understanding and explaining what it means to be peer reviewed, you are out of your league.

Let me ask you again: How do you know whether or not Quinn's book was not peer reviewed? Have you contacted Signature?

And, yes, his books were not peer reviewed.

CFR, please.

It has been an oft-repeated criticism of his work that there was insufficient editorial control.

"Insufficient editorial control" is something entirely different from peer review. Or did you not know that? For example, I think that the editorial control at FARMS Review is pretty haphazard and problematic. But, as you've pointed out, they still do employ a form of "peer review."

In any case, I'm interested in seeing your best cite that his work suffered from "insufficient editorial control." Here's hoping that you aren't forced to rely upon some thing from FARMS Review. Can you do it, Bob?

[_Mister Scratch]

I wouldn't say DCP's actions in regards to me are best described by the word despicable. I have no hard feelings for the guy. But he did send an email to my parents regarding my posts here on two separate occasions, not only the post referenced by Beastie but another post that Bob was involved in. If you need any clarification regarding the events that transpired between us feel free to PM me or post your questions here.

How would you characterize what he did? Do you not feel that he was trying to get you into hot water with your family?

[_GoodK]

I wouldn't say DCP's actions in regards to me are best described by the word despicable. I have no hard feelings for the guy. But he did send an email to my parents regarding my posts here on two separate occasions, not only the post referenced by Beastie but another post that Bob was involved in. If you need any clarification regarding the events that transpired between us feel free to PM me or post your questions here.

How would you characterize what he did? Do you not feel that he was trying to get you into hot water with your family?

Yes, I do think that, but I would call it petty and uncouth rather than despicable.

If his actions had some sort of effect on my life, perhaps I would feel differently. But his actions have done nothing to change the relationship I have with my family, so it's been easy for me to let this go.

[_rcrocket]

Scratch: I think when you read my cited sources then we'll talk. Until then, back to your monolithic un-peer-reviewed Quinn.

[_Mister Scratch]

Scratch: I think when you read my cited sources then we'll talk. Until then, back to your monolithic un-peer-reviewed Quinn.

LOL! Well, off you go, then. One embarrassment is probably plenty for now. Adieu!