Peterson Misleading Again

[_antishock8]

BORING.

When did Trevor become Droopy?

[_Mister Scratch]

I am much more interested in Bill Hamblin's Letter. As I noted in the other thread, this letter cannot look good for apologists,

You don't even need to know what was in it to find it damning and A Watershed Moment in the History of Mopologetics.

That's pretty funny.

Keep up the jokes, Professor P. I'm sure it makes your case look more convincing.

and they have pretty obvious motivations for wanting to bury it and keep it hidden away from critics.

How have "we" buried it and hidden it from "critics"? (You're the only critic, so far as I can recall, who's ever demanded to see it.)

I simply don't care to reminisce with you about it. I think I saw it once, somewhat more than fifteen years ago. It wasn't a big deal. Nothing memorable about it. My memory of it is pretty hazy. And you've already decided that it's bound to make us all look bad "in some way," so anything I say can only add fuel to the flames of a fire that you yourself have already lit -- which would lead to an interminable conversation about . . . what, exactly? My vague memories (which you'll constantly demand that I specify and expand as you look for something self-contradictory or damning) and your predetermined negative conclusions?

Gee. How tempting.

Actually, you lose either way. If you post the letter, we'll get to see just how, exactly, Prof. Hamblin was able to persuade the First Presidency Secretary to completely overturn an earlier, in-writing statement. If you don't post the letter, and continue to try and make stupid jokes about this issue, then it will continue to look as it already does: like you are hiding something.

The letter from Hamblin came three years after the first Watson Letter. If apologists thought the Tanner's reproduction of it was no biggie, then why not just let it fade from view?

Pal Joey condemns the Hambln article because it failed to mention Watson letter #1. You condemn the Hamblin article (and all apologists) because it signals some sort of alleged obsession with Watson letter #1.

Damned if we do, and damned if we don't.

The damnation is, as always with you, foreordained.

Not necessarily. Perhaps there is something in the letter which will redeem you. But, until you post it, how will we know?

Instead, they were obviously boiling with rage over it for some time.

LOL. "Boiling with rage"?

Feel free to supply a different explanation. As it stands, it's clear that you guys were upset about this for a long enough time to merit "evasive action, as it were.

Why did Michael Watson take Bill Hamblin's letter seriously? Now, this is very important.

Who knows? Ask Michael Watson.

No, Prof. P.---I'm asking you. I'm asking you why you think Watson bothered to reply.

Think about it. What would Bill Hamblin have said in order to get the Secretary to the First Presidency to actually use up his no doubt very busy schedule in order to write this letter?

Maybe it was the line about knowing the schedules and routes to school of Brother Watson's children?

More of your usual disgusting humor.

To that end, I believe that Bill Hamblin had to have either:
A) Lectured Watson about doctrine, telling the FP secretary that his views are "out of line," as it were.

LOL. I think "lecturing" the secretary to the First Presidency on doctrine would require a degree of chutzpah beyond even my friend Bill Hamblin's reach.

Then what? Did he *beg* Watson to help him score a point against the Tanners? You won't say, so we have to assume so.

B) Ordered/requested Watson to issue a retraction.

I like the notion that Professor Hamblin ordered Michael Watson to issue a retraction.

Let's go with order.

If you say so.

Plainly, this is a watershed moment in the history of Mopologetics.

If true, then it is.

If this is true, then I think we have to assume that Hamblin "scared" Watson somehow.

I suspect that the line about Brother Watson's children must have had precisely that effect.

Yuk yuk yuk. It is interesting to note how much of your humor is of the "let's kill people's kids!" or "let me blow Mr. Scratch away with my assault rifle!" Tell me: Did you make the same kind of jokes when you were spreading malicious rumors about Mike Quinn?

I really think that Hamblin *must* have requested the retraction.

I think we agreed -- didn't we? -- that he ordered it.

If you say so. I'll bear this in mind when I write up the versions of this whole fiasco for CARM and RfM. I'm sure they will love to know that you've admitted this.

I have a hard time believe that Michael Watson---no doubt a very busy man---would have just written the letter out of the blue, just for the hell of it, in order to make what is really a very minor and stupid doctrinal clarification.

That seems pretty obvious.

Thanks for admitting that. This means, then, that Hamblin either ordered or begged him to write the letter.

You say that members of your family and your former ward don't like you. Has it ever occurred to you that getting a life might help to rebuild some of those relationships?

Swinging below the belt now, are we? Wow, you must really be desperate to put a lid on this issue.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Actually, you lose either way.

I understand that.

It's the beauty and, in its perverse way, the genius of your method.

Yuk yuk yuk. It is interesting to note how much of your humor is of the "let's kill people's kids!" or "let me blow Mr. Scratch away with my assault rifle!" Tell me: Did you make the same kind of jokes when you were spreading malicious rumors about Mike Quinn?

LOL. You're a real card, Scratch.

I'll bear this in mind when I write up the versions of this whole fiasco for CARM and RfM. I'm sure they will love to know that you've admitted this.

I didn't realize that you wrote for CARM, too. What handle do you use there? I don't follow CARM much. (Oh well. I suppose we'll find out when you post your report on this topic.)

Of course, I already realized that you post on RfM. That's where, as I believe, I caught you making an obscene remark about me several years ago, which you then lied about on the FAIR board, which is what evidently got you booted from that board. So far as I'm aware, you stopped using your "Mister Scratch" moniker on RfM at that point; presumably, you've used something else since then.

I have a hard time believe that Michael Watson---no doubt a very busy man---would have just written the letter out of the blue, just for the hell of it, in order to make what is really a very minor and stupid doctrinal clarification.

That seems pretty obvious.

Thanks for admitting that. This means, then, that Hamblin either ordered or begged him to write the letter.

He "ordered" him or he "begged" him? Those are the two options?

Vintage Scratch.

You say that members of your family and your former ward don't like you. Has it ever occurred to you that getting a life might help to rebuild some of those relationships?

Swinging below the belt now, are we? Wow, you must really be desperate to put a lid on this issue.

You're the one who says that you suspect that members of your family and your former ward have been seeking to do you harm. I didn't raise the issue. I have no idea who you are nor where you live. In fact, that statement of yours was the first thing I've ever seen that has given me any serious reason to think that you might really be nominally Mormon.

[_Mister Scratch]

Actually, you lose either way.

I understand that.

It's the beauty and, in its perverse way, the genius of your method.

Thank you for admitting to Beastie what I suspected: That Hamblin, in effect, told Watson that identifying a New York Cumorah would be a major blow to the faith.

I'll bear this in mind when I write up the versions of this whole fiasco for CARM and RfM. I'm sure they will love to know that you've admitted this.

I didn't realize that you wrote for CARM, too. What handle do you use there? I don't follow CARM much. (Oh well. I suppose we'll find out when you post your report on this topic.)

Of course, I already realized that you post on RfM. That's where, as I believe, I caught you making an obscene remark about me several years ago, which you then lied about on the FAIR board, which is what evidently got you booted from that board. So far as I'm aware, you stopped using your "Mister Scratch" moniker on RfM at that point; presumably, you've used something else since then.

It's true that I have posted a small bit on RfM. Probably the same number of times you were, before you were booted off. Of course, you have no real evidence that I made "an obscene remark," but that hasn't stopped you from repeatedly leveling the false accusation.

I have a hard time believe that Michael Watson---no doubt a very busy man---would have just written the letter out of the blue, just for the hell of it, in order to make what is really a very minor and stupid doctrinal clarification.

That seems pretty obvious.

Thanks for admitting that. This means, then, that Hamblin either ordered or begged him to write the letter.

He "ordered" him or he "begged" him? Those are the two options?

Based on what you told Beastie, it appears it was a somewhat subdued combination of both.

You say that members of your family and your former ward don't like you. Has it ever occurred to you that getting a life might help to rebuild some of those relationships?

Swinging below the belt now, are we? Wow, you must really be desperate to put a lid on this issue.

You're the one who says that you suspect that members of your family and your former ward have been seeking to do you harm.

I never said such a thing, and you are clearly swinging below the belt. But, then: this is par for the course with you. Your lying as "Free Thinker"; your various racist and anti-semitic statements; your Quinn gossipmongering---gee, should I have ever expected civil and tolerant behavior from you? I guess not. All this coupled with your mudslinging on Skinny-L, and your stalking of Church critics (archived on SHIELDS no less!)... I guess that's what I get for ever crossing paths with the likes of you.

Anyways, I hope that one day you will have the strength and conviction in your beliefs to simply tell the truth, and to not endlessly dodge the hard-hitting questions. Sure, you can try to pooh-pooh them away, but why? Are you chicken? To a certain extent, as you alluded in another post, you are. That's why you would go after critics like Mike Quinn by spreading gossip, or why you would manipulate Ray A using your "Free Thinker" alias, or why you would try to use that apartment building fire as an opportunity to smear critics/nonmembers and as a PR opportunity for the Church. (And *that* was truly disgusting, if I may say so.)

For your own sake, I hope that you one day find the strength to apologize sincerely for these things. That would mean that you would dispense with forumlating excuses for yourself (which, I know, you do for a living practically). We can always hold out hope for that, I suppose.

I didn't raise the issue. I have no idea who you are nor where you live. In fact, that statement of yours was the first thing I've ever seen that has given me any serious reason to think that you might really be nominally Mormon.

I was born into the Church, Professor P.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Thank you for admitting to Beastie what I suspected: That Hamblin, in effect, told Watson that identifying a New York Cumorah would be a major blow to the faith.

Vintage Scratch.

I never said, let alone "admitted," anything of the kind.

You're simply following your stated method: "In some way," everything has got to make me and all apologists look bad. We "lose either way."

You're the one who says that you suspect that members of your family and your former ward have been seeking to do you harm.

I never said such a thing

At 6:46 PM on Tuesday, 29 July 2008, you posted this: "I sort of assume that one of my TBM family members or one of the people from my old ward "outed" me. I'd prefer not to get into too many details about it. DCP is already practically frothing at the mouth with glee at the possibility of my having been made to suffer."

Your lying as "Free Thinker";

???

your various racist and anti-semitic statements;

?????

your stalking of Church critics

?????

your mudslinging on Skinny-L

?????

you would try to use that apartment building fire as an opportunity to smear critics/nonmembers and as a PR opportunity for the Church

?????

your Quinn gossipmongering

Gosh. You're rolling out some of your Greatest Hits!

Does this mean Goodbye? Is this an announcement of the Scratch "American Hack" Farewell Tour?

And *that* was truly disgusting, if I may say so.

Well of course it was!

"In some way," absolutely everything has got to make me and all apologists look bad. We "lose either way."

[_harmony]

I make the same statement against Loran, the Crock, and anyone else who sets themselves up as a judge in Isreal and then doesn't live what they expect others to live.

I didn't "set myself up as a judge in Israel." I was called to be a bishop. I didn't call myself to the job, and I didn't want it.

You did not and do not sustain yourself, then? You are not a bishop, a judge of Isreal? (You realize, of course, that it's possible to turn down a calling? Don't try to kid us, even if you've managed to kid yourself; you took it because you wanted to, otherwise you would have turned it down.)

Nor do I set myself up to judge the moral lives or characters of others here or elsewhere in the ether. I know nothing about how they live their daily lives, and have absolutely nothing to say on the matter.

Yes, you do. Often. Virtually every time you converse with me, with Trixie, with Rollo, with lots of people here and elsewhere.

Likewise, you know nothing whatever about my daily life, and you're in no position whatsoever to pronounce judgment on whether I do or don't "live what [I] expect others to live."

I know you're a bishop, a judge of Isreal, a Professor at BYU, and I know what you say in various places on the internet and in print. You judge me without cause and without merit. I at least admit I don't live my religion as well as I could; you are unable to get around that idea for yourself.

[_Daniel Peterson]

You did not and do not sustain yourself, then?

Don't be silly.

I didn't seek the position, didn't want it, would happily have foregone it, but, when called, accepted it.

You are not a bishop, a judge of Isreal?

I am.

You realize, of course, that it's possible to turn down a calling?

I do.

You may have heard, though, that committed Latter-day Saints typically don't do so.

Don't try to kid us, even if you've managed to kid yourself; you took it because you wanted to, otherwise you would have turned it down.

I suspect that you understand Mormonism, the Church, and Mormon culture well enough to realize that that's a considerable oversimplification.

Nor do I set myself up to judge the moral lives or characters of others here or elsewhere in the ether. I know nothing about how they live their daily lives, and have absolutely nothing to say on the matter.

Yes, you do. Often. Virtually every time you converse with me, with Trixie, with Rollo, with lots of people here and elsewhere.

If I do it virtually every time with lots of people here and elsewhere, several really clear examples of my pronouncing broad judgments on their general characters should be pretty easy to provide.

You judge me without cause and without merit.

How? Have I ever said that you don't live a Christian lifestyle or anything of that sort? I can't recall having ever done so, and can't imagine having done so, since, for all I know, you're the neighborhood saint, the most perfect grandma in North America, a pillar of support for several charities, and a daily volunteer at the local soup kitchen.

I fault positions you take on the internet. That's pretty much what internet discussions are about. I have nothing whatsoever to say about your character more generally. I would never, ever, arrogate to myself the competence or the right to judge whether you live a Christian life.

I at least admit I don't live my religion as well as I could; you are unable to get around that idea for yourself.

I'm absolutely capable of acknowledging that I fall far short of perfection. But that doesn't mean that I'm particularly disposed to accept your judgment of my life and character.

[_beastie]

beastie wrote:
In addition, it's one more example of how apologists are willing to disregard past teachings of prophets and apostles.


No. (As is your wont -- and it's one of the reasons that I don't see you as a serious conversation partner -- your statement is spun, partisan, and question-begging.) It's an example of how we try to be precise in separating official doctrine from opinion or unexamined assumption. One of the foremost tasks of any kind of scholarship is to try to get things precisely right, to distinguish fact from common opinion, reality from appearance, truth from received notions. You dismiss that, but it's the lifeblood of the academic approach to virtually every topic.

This is the third time on this thread you have falsely accused me of phrasing something in a "spun" manner. And yet each one of my statements has been correct. You have yet to correct the other two statements I made which you deemed inadequate:

You Christians think God's or the universe's sense of justice couldn't be sated unless he agreed to allow his son to be killed? Gotta have that blood, that blood makes it all right. If only a half-god could be killed, then all would be right with the world.

This is a factually correct statement, aside from whether or not God allowed it or actually planned it. Blood had to be spilled up until Jesus' final blood-spilling, and his blood-spilling was adequate due to the fact that he was half-god. This had to be to make the world "right", or to satisfy justice.

Since we're talking about the disappearing gold plates with reformed egyptian translated by a peep stone, start there.

This is factually correct. The plates disappeared with Moroni. They were written in reformed egyptian. Joseph Smith translated them with a peep stone.

In addition, it's one more example of how apologists are willing to disregard past teachings of prophets and apostles.

Again, this is a factual statement. Past prophets and apostles have taught that the Book of Mormon Hill Cumorah is in NY. Apologists disregard this teaching.

The problem isn't that I am "spinning" - it is that I am *not* spinning when I make these statements. That's why they offend you. Each statement is factually correct. I simply stated the plain facts. If I have not, please show exactly where I have made an erroneous statement. If you cannot show where I have made an erroneous statement, I think it's clear you won't answer me because I'm "uppity". I don't engage in obsequious pandering. I don't go out of my way to make you feel at least partially good about your beliefs.

And, by the way, by refusing to answer these questions, if asked by me or anyone "like me", of course you have judged me. You also make frequent snide comments. I'm not criticizing you for these things, but please don't insult our intelligence by pretending you are above judging and snide comments. You aren't. I think that's why you like to post here. You fit right in.

[_cksalmon]

Wants to hit the hay.


(Yeah, that's the Kalashnikov. Chippy wants to shoot this thread, but realizes it would give away his position.)

[_Daniel Peterson]

This is the third time on this thread you have falsely [sic] accused me of phrasing something in a "spun" manner.

That you evidently can't even recognize that you're doing it simply makes the problem worse, and confirms my judgment that attempting serious discussion with you on such topics would be an exercise in pointless frustration.

I think it's clear you won't answer me because I'm "uppity". I don't engage in obsequious pandering. I don't go out of my way to make you feel at least partially good about your beliefs.

LOL. Yep. That's right. It's your intellectual virtues that lead me to opt out of conversations with you.

And, by the way, by refusing to answer these questions, if asked by me or anyone "like me", of course you have judged me.

I haven't claimed that I don't judge at all. Surely there can't be any internet poster anywhere who doesn't judge some topics worth discussing while others are not, who doesn't judge some positions correct and others mistaken, who doesn't judge some posters worth engaging while others aren't. Would such a thoroughly "non-judgmental" person be worth having around? Could he or she possibly even carry on a meaningful conversation?

What I don't do is judge your character as a whole.

Anybody who seriously imagines that we can judge the entire lives, psychologies, personalities, and characters of others based on message board postings is, to that extent, delusional.

You also make frequent snide comments.

If I hurt your feelings, I'm sorry.

I'm not criticizing you for these things,

Of course you are.

but please don't insult our intelligence by pretending you are above judging

I don't. Judgments are necessary. It's impossible to live without judging constantly who is trustworthy and who isn't, what is worthwhile and what is not, who is knowledgeable and who isn't, and so forth.

and snide comments. You aren't.

The funny thing is, I'm typically holding back.

If I were as mean and nasty as some here like to imagine, things would be very different.

I think that's why you like to post here. You fit right in.

Think of me as antishock9.