Why I am not a Mormon

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I think you just regret the fact that I haven't acknowledged my Scratch-imputed guilt for leading a smear campaign against Mike Quinn, serving as a minion of the Strengthening Church Members Committee, lying about Church funding of "Mopologetics," and various other important elements of Scratchite demonology.

Not at all -- your constant denials in light of overwhelming evidence simply made you out the fool.

Must . . . resist . . . temptation . . . to . . . make . . . obvious . . . retort.

Oh, c'mon, you know you want to. You've never been able to resist digging that hole deeper.

It's not my "line" -- it's the "line" of good judgment, common sense, and butting out of other's family affairs, that you crossed when you sent those messages to GoodK's dad.

I've said sufficiently often that I don't think that there's anything even remotely ethically problematic in sending a friend a link to a post on a public message board. You disagree.

You're the one who brought up "toeing the line," not me.

[_beastie]

It always is -- in every field.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you reference the Spenser Lake horse skull in one of the FAIR videos?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Oh, c'mon, you know you want to. You've never been able to resist digging that hole deeper.

Quite the contrary. The things that I haven't written but could have, haven't said but could have, haven't made public but could have, would fill a book.

According to Scratchite faith, I'm out of control. Outside of Scratchworld, though, where actual reality holds sway, things are quite different.

It's not my "line" -- it's the "line" of good judgment, common sense, and butting out of other's family affairs, that you crossed when you sent those messages to GoodK's dad.

I've said sufficiently often that I don't think that there's anything even remotely ethically problematic in sending a friend a link to a post on a public message board. You disagree.

You're the one who brought up "toeing the line," not me.

Yes, and I was talking about the central dogmas of Scratchism, not about this little matter of the two Unspeakably Horrible GoodK Epistles.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

In the meantime, it's every buyer for him or herself. In other words - beware.

It always is -- in every field.

In other words, people, Dan is warning us never to trust him -- he could turn at any moment and fink us out to our folks.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Oh, c'mon, you know you want to. You've never been able to resist digging that hole deeper.

Quite the contrary. The things that I haven't written but could have, haven't said but could have, haven't made public but could have, would fill a book.

True enough -- you'll never be able to stop embarrassing yourself. Carry on ....

... not about this little matter of the two Unspeakably Horrible GoodK Epistles.

There you go again with that cavalier attitude. It must serve you well as bishop to treat others' family affairs so lightly. Takes all the 'angst' out of the job. Good for you ....

[_Daniel Peterson]

It always is -- in every field.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you reference the Spenser Lake horse skull in one of the FAIR videos?

It's certainly possible. I don't recall. That was recorded at least two or three years ago, and I haven't seen it.

If I did, it's because, at the time, I thought the thing was authentic.

This happens in academia. New finds supplant old ones. Old archaeological conclusions are revised. The universal ether is discredited, Lamarckianism collapses, Piltdown Man turns out to be a hoax, and so forth.

When and if I have occasion to address the subject again, I'll make a note of the artifact's now-demonstrated fraudulence. Presumably, though, somebody else will do that before I do.

And, in any case, as a friend who follows this issue more closely than I do has told me, while this artifact appears to be fraudulent, some other new evidence seems very positive. All will be reported on in due time, if not by me then (more likely) by somebody else.

In the meantime, it's every buyer for him or herself. In other words - beware.

It always is -- in every field.

In other words, people, Dan is warning us never to trust him -- he could turn at any moment and fink us out to our folks.

Try to follow the conversation, Miniscratch. That statement wasn't referring to the two Unspeakably Horrible GoodK Epistles, but to the vagaries of academic theory and data.

[_Daniel Peterson]

... not about this little matter of the two Unspeakably Horrible GoodK Epistles.

There you go again with that cavalier attitude. It must serve you well as bishop to treat others' family affairs so lightly. Takes all the 'angst' out of the job. Good for you ....

You're so desperate, suddenly, to be negative, perhaps so deeply frustrated, that you're beginning to talk gibberish.

GoodK hasn't claimed that he's suffered any real harm. GoodK's father remains a friend of mine. The two Unspeakably Horrible GoodK Epistles are demonstrably brief and mild.

In the meantime, if you who don't even know me and probably don't know any members of my ward and almost certainly know nothing of the counseling and other bishopric work that I do wish to criticize my service as a bishop, that's entirely your right. It just makes you look bad.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

In the meantime, it's every buyer for him or herself. In other words - beware.

It always is -- in every field.

In other words, people, Dan is warning us never to trust him -- he could turn at any moment and fink us out to our folks.

Try to follow the conversation, Rollo. That statement wasn't referring to the two Unspeakably Horrible GoodK Epistles, but to the vagaries of academic theory and data.

I know. But your statement seemed so apropos in light of what you've been writing on this thread. I apologize for your not seeing the irony.

[_beastie]

t's certainly possible. I don't recall. That was recorded at least two or three years ago, and I haven't seen it.

If I did, it's because, at the time, I thought the thing was authentic.

This happens in academia. New finds supplant old ones. Old archaeological conclusions are revised. The universal ether is discredited, Lamarckianism collapses, Piltdown Man turns out to be a hoax, and so forth.

When and if I have occasion to address the subject again, I'll make a note of the artifact's now-demonstrated fraudulence. Presumably, though, somebody else will do that before I do.

And, in any case, as a friend who follows this issue more closely than I do has told me, while this artifact appears to be fraudulent, some other new evidence seems very positive. All will be reported on in due time, if not by me then (more likely) by somebody else.

In the meantime, if there were a way to alert viewers who trust your information that it may be unreliable, would you do it?

Repeating my earlier question that is getting buried:

So, out of curiosity, if you had just overheard GoodK call his father a blowhard, would you still have felt morally obligated to inform his father?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

... not about this little matter of the two Unspeakably Horrible GoodK Epistles.

There you go again with that cavalier attitude. It must serve you well as bishop to treat others' family affairs so lightly. Takes all the 'angst' out of the job. Good for you ....

You're so desperate, suddenly, to be negative, perhaps so deeply frustrated, that you're beginning to talk gibberish.

GoodK hasn't claimed that he's suffered any real harm. GoodK's father remains a friend of mine. The two Unspeakably Horrible GoodK Epistles are demonstrably brief and mild.

GoodK sounded pretty peeved (justifiably so, in my opinion). And, frankly, can you read his and his father's mind to know you didn't cause "any real harm"? Of course, the answer is "no."

In the meantime, if you who don't even know me and probably don't know any members of my ward and almost certainly know nothing of the counseling and other bishopric work that I do wish to criticize my service as a bishop, that's entirely your right. It just makes you look bad.

Is this your way of saying that the way you act in person is completely different than the guy we see here? Figures ....