Book of Mormon apologetic of last resort?

[_Daniel Peterson]

In advance of the deluge of evidence that will shortly be presented here to demonstrate my hypocrisy, and etc., let me apologize to the entire world that I have not rebuked every post worthy of rebuke on every thread ever posted.

For some reason, when I was elected Supreme High Mormon Internet Policeman, nobody bothered to inform me.

With that admission out of the way, though, I challenge any and all interested -- all three or four of you -- to find any declaration from me, anywhere, that all apostasy is caused by crude sin, that all apostates are evil, or anything like thereunto. (Am I correct in assuming that that's the crime of which I'm accused?)

[_EAllusion]

Here's a complaint about Pahoran:

http://pacumenispages.yuku.com/topic/15 ... anked.html

Here is the thread:

http://pacumenispages.yuku.com/forum/viewtopic/id/5144

Pahoran said of John Corrill:

Helen continued to live with her parents after she was sealed to Joseph which militates against the casual assumptions of those who like to project their own nascent pedophile fantasies upon him.

It's worth reading in context to see how completely uncalled for and out of the blue that comment is.

[_EAllusion]

For some reason, when I was elected Supreme High Mormon Internet Policeman, nobody bothered to inform me.

Beastie said:

And has the same apologist made a similar avowal in regards to other, equally offensive believers, like Pahoran?

You said:

That apologist may not share the assumption that undergirds your question. (Fancy that! The nerve of the fellow!)

You've made it clear that you disagree with the assumption of Beastie's post that Pahoran was as offensive, if not more so, than Kevin. This was in defense of you going after Kevin for his behavior, but not Pahoran. There's nothing wrong with pointing out what that means about what you find offensive.

Pahoran is a ocean of this stuff, so let's just sit back and enjoy it.

In truth, I was expecting you to take the out left for yourself in that post, and point out that the hypothetical apologist might not refer to what you personally think. It's obviously a way of being ironically coy, but 'ya never know. If you plan on going that route, let me know so I can switch gears and point out the inanity of that.

Maybe instead, we should just go and find "Freethinker" (you know, that person you are always sending emails to) defending Pahoran.

[_Daniel Peterson]

You've made it clear that you disagree with the assumption of Beastie's post that Pahoran was as offensive, if not more so, than Kevin. This was in defense of you going after Kevin for his behavior, but not Pahoran. There's nothing wrong with pointing out what that means about what you find offensive.

Except, of course, that you don't really know.

It's not a matter of simple-mindedly counting up insults. My problems with Kevin Graham are somewhat different than that.

But I have no intention of spending much time on this matter, and will not bother to explain (and then to defend my explanation, and then to defend my defense of my explanation, and then to defend my defense of my defense of my explanation). My choices are my choices, just as my life is my life. I engage where and whom I want to engage, and I don't feel that I have to account to anybody else for my "failure" to engage where they want me to. I claim the same right enjoyed by everybody else on this and other message boards: I comment when I feel like commenting, and, when I don't, I don't.

Those who always seem to want to make Me the issue can enjoy it to their heart's content, though.

[_antishock8]

Pumple,

Why is it so important for you to focus on Dart's personal life, and not address the topic of this thread? I can understand if you were, at first, talking about this topic, but then got sidetracked into Dart's life... But you just up and appear out of nowhere and start in on the guy.

The Internet Mormon's M.O.:

1) Declare anti-Mormons are rude, then act rudely.

2) Declare anti-Mormons have no life, then spend life on anti-Mormon boards.

3) Declare anti-Mormons are stupid, then believe in Mormonism.

4) Ignore fellow Mormons' bad behavior, then point out all perceived slights against self or other Mormons.

5) Stomp foot, and exit in a huff. Come back. Repeat when embarrassed.

6) Ignore logic or doctrinal issues and engage in ad hom and red herrings. Get mad if someone follows suit.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Poor antishock8 is apparently so tickled by his own brilliant little masterpiece of a list that we're probably going to be treated to it ad nauseam for a while.

[_antishock8]

Poor antishock8 is apparently so tickled by his own brilliant little masterpiece of a list that we're probably going to be treated to it ad nauseam for a while.

The Internet Mormon's M.O.:

1) Declare anti-Mormons are rude, then act rudely.

2) Declare anti-Mormons have no life, then spend life on anti-Mormon boards.

3) Declare anti-Mormons are stupid, then believe in Mormonism.

4) Ignore fellow Mormons' bad behavior, then point out all perceived slights against self or other Mormons.

5) Stomp foot, and exit in a huff. Come back. Repeat when embarrassed.

6) Ignore logic or doctrinal issues and engage in ad hom and red herrings. Get mad if someone follows suit.

[_EAllusion]

It's not a matter of simple-mindedly counting up insults. My problems with Kevin Graham are somewhat different than that.

I think I have a good sense of the difference between Kevin and Pahoran when it comes to drawing your open disapproval. I think a lot of it has to do with clashes over Islam, where you see bigotry on the part of Kevin. (I'm largely on your side in those conversations, incidentally). I don't expect you to concur, but that's life.

But I have no intention of spending much time on this matter, and will not bother to explain (and then to defend my explanation, and then to defend my defense of my explanation, and then to defend my defense of my defense of my explanation). My choices are my choices, just as my life is my life.

Sure. I'm perfectly fine with that. Like I said, I think it is just worth pointing out examples of what Pahoran is about in order to breath context in to what you are prioritizing when making disavowals. It's not as though you are not familiar with Pahoran's history. People on this board are familiar with Kevin. He's had - um - relapses here. They can compare that to Pahoran stating people critical of the LDS Church are Ok with killing LDS or that a person must be having pedophile fantasies if they state that the evidence of whether Smith had a sexual relationship with Helen Marr Kimball is ambiguous. You've made yourself clear enough. Enjoy your day.

Those who always seem to want to make Me the issue can enjoy it to their heart's content, though.

Uh, you made yourself the issue. I'm just replying to what you said.

[_EAllusion]

Speaking of which,

It was against ZLMB rules to accuse others of lying. One of Pahoran's long-standing schticks was an attempt to accuse critics of being liars while managing to avoid being dinged by the mods for it. He was constantly calling posters and posts liars and lies, sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly. It was rare for him not to do this in any long conversation.

The funny thing is that Pahoran has had numerous examples of what can most generously be called BS. Not being generous, Pahoran has no problem making stuff up as part of his apologetic toolset. Gad and I's favorite was this thread, probably because of its triviality:

http://pacumenispages.yuku.com/topic/64 ... tml?page=4

Now read this thread:

http://pacumenispages.yuku.com/topic/64 ... -Soho.html

[Guest]

Beastie snarled,

Now, of course critics made such a hue and cry about Pahoran's repeated offensive behavior, and eventually mods would ban Pahoran for a couple of months to "cool down", or forbid him from using the term "anti-mormon" for a brief period. The mods at Z, at that point in time, really did try to apply rules even-handedly (unlike our MAD friends).

Sort of. Pahoran tended to get off easier than other people in the same position would. Really, his cumulative behavior would've resulted in a much harsher dealing for most other posters.

But fusing this point together with my lying comment, take this example:

http://pacumenispages.yuku.com/topic/16 ... horan.html

Pahoran blatantly says someone is lying for stating that the LDS Church is still the most segregated Church they've personally attended (which could easily be true, mind you.) This isn't the first time he's broken the rule about accusing others of lying. It's a manifestation of who he was, is, and would be before and after the moderator dinging. He gets off easy. On the plus side, at least the lead mod admitted personal bias.

As far as apologists who have publically rebuked Pahoran, I recall Kerry Shirts on occasion telling Pahoran - once calling him by his first name - very politely to knock it off. In private, the most common response I got seemed to be that Pahoran is a force of logic and argument (and Pahoran really is to Mormonism what Droopy is to politics. So let that sink in.) who just goes a little too far at times.