Online Apologetics and "Collateral Damage"

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Hi Blair,

You strike me as an intellectual Twinkie—no, I mean that sincerely. Unfortunately, I'm pre-diabetic, so...

Ciao,

</brent>



http://mormonscripturestudies.com
(© 2008 Brent Lee Metcalfe. All rights reserved.)
——————————
The thesis of inspiration may not be invoked to guarantee historicity, for a divinely inspired story is not necessarily history.
—Raymond E. Brown

:'(

[_Sethbag]

Loap is actually smarter than his apologetics make him look. It's really a consequence of his decision to defend the indefensible, and believe the unbelievable.

Sorry Loap, but you believe a guy who was commanded by a God, who wants us to know about him and follow him, but won't actually tell us anything interesting, to "translate" a book of golden plates by hiding the golden plates in a wooden box and sticking his face down into a hat to read the words off his magic rock, then "translate" some Egyptian funeral spells saying they were actually written by Abraham himself and contain his story, and then secretly marry, and bed, dozens of women, some of whom were already married.

You believe this guy who said Zelph, in Illinois or thereabouts, who was known from the Rocky Mountains to the Atlantic Ocean, was actually part of a race of Israelites who first turned red (Lamanite) and then white again (Zelph the White Lamanite), and who actually lived somewhere in Mesoamerica, a couple of thousand miles away. That there must be "two Cumorahs" because Joseph Smith said the hill in New York was called Cumorah, but the Book of Mormon events must have taken place thousands of miles away, so the natural conclusion is that there must have been two of them, not that Joseph or the Book of Mormon were wrong.

Sorry bro, but when you believe and actively try to defend these kinds of beliefs, don't be too surprised when someone challenges your intellect. This stuff is literally unbelievable. To yet find a way to believe it anyway requires hard work (you know, the work to "maintain your testimony"), or else a few screws loose.

In your case I don't believe your intellect is lacking. I think you've spent too much time and effort reinforcing your ability and inclination to believe it.

The LDS Church is not only not true, it's obviously not true. The apologists' job is to obscure that fact and prevent the kind of clarity of thinking that sees right through magic rocks in hats and angels with flaming swords ordering a 38 year old guy to marry a teenaged girl as his 30somethingth wife, behind his real wife's back of course.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Loap is actually smarter than his apologetics make him look. It's really a consequence of his decision to defend the indefensible, and believe the unbelievable.

Sorry Loap, but you believe a guy who was commanded by a God, who wants us to know about him and follow him, but won't actually tell us anything interesting, to "translate" a book of golden plates by hiding the golden plates in a wooden box and sticking his face down into a hat to read the words off his magic rock, then "translate" some Egyptian funeral spells saying they were actually written by Abraham himself and contain his story, and then secretly marry, and bed, dozens of women, some of whom were already married.

You believe this guy who said Zelph, in Illinois or thereabouts, who was known from the Rocky Mountains to the Atlantic Ocean, was actually part of a race of Israelites who first turned red (Lamanite) and then white again (Zelph the White Lamanite), and who actually lived somewhere in Mesoamerica, a couple of thousand miles away. That there must be "two Cumorahs" because Joseph Smith said the hill in New York was called Cumorah, but the Book of Mormon events must have taken place thousands of miles away, so the natural conclusion is that there must have been two of them, not that Joseph or the Book of Mormon were wrong.

Don't forget the crazy part about angels and God's voice and whatnot.

Sorry bro, but when you believe and actively try to defend these kinds of beliefs, don't be too surprised when someone challenges your intellect. This stuff is literally unbelievable. To yet find a way to believe it anyway requires hard work (you know, the work to "maintain your testimony"), or else a few screws loose.

In your case I don't believe your intellect is lacking. I think you've spent too much time and effort reinforcing your ability and inclination to believe it.

I've never claimed to be surprised at my intellect being challenged. (And that goes for things in general!)

[_Persephone]

Hi Dan,

Your sources—assuming that you recall correctly—haven't served you well. You say about my claim:

Yes. I'm contradicting it.

My understanding and my memory have it that perhaps slightly more than five were printed and bound (and released), but fewer than ten. If I'm wrong, I'm not wrong by very much. There were very few printed and distributed, and virtually all were successfully recalled. So I was told, and I've never had any reason to doubt it.

Then let me give you a reason to doubt it: the Review of Books on the Book of Mormon received via snail-mail by a Californian FARMS subscriber.







































To suggest that a subscription-based publication like RBBM would be mailed to subscribers after only "fewer than ten" "were printed and bound" is, well, perhaps the "joke" that you've been referring to all along.

Regards,

</brent>


http://mormonscripturestudies.com
(© 2008 Brent Lee Metcalfe. All rights reserved.)
——————————
The thesis of inspiration may not be invoked to guarantee historicity, for a divinely inspired story is not necessarily history.
—Raymond E. Brown

What a strangely childish thing to do!

Then again, New Approaches to the Book of Mormon and American Apocrypha have certainly been a thorn in the side of LDS apologists, as well as a source of "watershed moments" for erstwhile unsuspecting believers. I know it was something that began to pry open my eyes to the realities of Mormonism, and to finally give serious consideration to the various alternatives presented to us in this life. For that, I must tender my sincerest thanks to those who have marshaled the courage necessary to face down the behemoth. (Incidentally, you and I met briefly at an Exmormon conference in SLC two years ago. I was dragged up from St. George by an apostate friend -- I was still, more or less, a believer at the time -- and, with great interest, I heard you recount some of your experiences. It was a fascinating experience for me.)

[_Mister Scratch]

Apparently, DCP cannot be trusted to provide accurate accounts of events that might reflect badly on Mopologetics. If I recall correctly, he stated to me in a previous threat that, among other things, this was a "private joke," that a very small number of issues were printed, and I believe he gave me some highly suspect explanation as to how the decision was made to yank all the issues. I asked him is he, or Hamblin, or any of the other Mopologists were "embarrassed" about this episode, and he said, "No." But can even this be believed?

I do have to hand it to him, however: I have cited numerous instances where he has spun the facts, behaved dishonestly, or just lied outrightly, and yet he always managed to persuade people---often people who have been at odds with him---that he is not a fundamentally dishonest human being. I guess the issue that I wonder about the most now that Brent has cleared the air is the 2nd Watson Letter. Frankly, I now have to assume that DCP has been lying, and that he and Hamblin forged the letter.

[_harmony]

What a strangely childish thing to do!

You were expecting a higher level of behavior? Why?

[_Daniel Peterson]

I've corrected Dan on both points on multiple occasions.

How many times?

I may, now that you've reminded me, vaguely recall one prior time. (This titanic issue doesn't rank very high on my list of interests. From the effort you're plainly putting into it here, though -- and this is your first appearance on MDB in many moons, if I'm not mistaken -- I gather that you grant it considerably more importance than I do.) I'd forgotten about it, but will endeavor to remember your version of the notification of the press in the future. As to the number of copies of the Review containing The Infamous Acrostic that were printed, bound, and distributed, I'll try to remember that you and the editor of the Review disagree.

To suggest that a subscription-based publication like RBBM would be mailed to subscribers after only "fewer than ten" "were printed and bound" is, well, perhaps the "joke" that you've been referring to all along.

Nevertheless, I believe that the figure I quoted for you is correct.

And, incidentally, the FARMS Review was not (and, even now, although some recent gestures have been made in that direction, really isn't) "subscription-based." Membership in FARMS way back at the time of The Horrible Event did not include a subscription to the FARMS Review. Nor was such a subscription possible in any other way.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Apparently, DCP cannot be trusted to provide accurate accounts of events that might reflect badly on Mopologetics.

That's right. If you want reliable inside information, go to Scartch.

If I recall correctly, he stated to me in a previous threat that, among other things, this was a "private joke," that a very small number of issues were printed, and I believe he gave me some highly suspect explanation as to how the decision was made to yank all the issues.

As editor of the Review, I was scarcely in a position to know, was I?

Trust Scartch. He knows.

I asked him is he, or Hamblin, or any of the other Mopologists were "embarrassed" about this episode, and he said, "No." But can even this be believed?

It would be helpful if Scartch could supply the actual quotation in which I said this.

Bill Hamblin was certainly not embarrassed, and continues unembarrassed to this day. I don't think it bothers him much that not everybody shares his sense of humor. I believe that I've said that before. I don't believe that I've ever said otherwise.

However, some of the leadership of FARMS at the time -- e.g., the president and members of the board of directors -- were quite displeased. I believe that I've said that before. I don't believe that I've ever said otherwise.

Of course, if Scartch feels differently, his version should be trusted over mine. He knows.

I do have to hand it to him, however: I have cited numerous instances where he has spun the facts, behaved dishonestly, or just lied outrightly, and yet he always managed to persuade people---often people who have been at odds with him---that he is not a fundamentally dishonest human being.

My fiendish cunning and lack of scruples are legendary.

I guess the issue that I wonder about the most now that Brent has cleared the air

Which, being interpreted, means "now that Brent has expressed an opinion about the size of the print run and the extent of the distribution of Review 6/1 that differs from the recollections of the Review's editor." Master Scartch, of course, immediately assumes that Brent is correct, because he has already assumed that I'm "a fundamentally dishonest human being."

is the 2nd Watson Letter. Frankly, I now have to assume that DCP has been lying, and that he and Hamblin forged the letter.

The case, it seems, is closed.

Finis!

Trust Scartch. He's an objective observer, with no axe to grind.

[_Mister Scratch]

If I recall correctly, he stated to me in a previous threat that, among other things, this was a "private joke," that a very small number of issues were printed, and I believe he gave me some highly suspect explanation as to how the decision was made to yank all the issues.

As editor of the Review, I was scarcely in a position to know, was I?

That's my point: you *were* in a position to know, and you evidently lied about it.

I asked him is he, or Hamblin, or any of the other Mopologists were "embarrassed" about this episode, and he said, "No." But can even this be believed?

It would be helpful if Scartch could supply the actual quotation in which I said this.
[/quote]

Well: were you or were you not embarrassed by this episode? Do you feel badly that it happened, and that you guys got "caught"?

However, some of the leadership of FARMS at the time -- e.g., the president and members of the board of directors -- were quite displeased. I believe that I've said that before. I don't believe that I've ever said otherwise.

You have tried to paint the whole affair as a "no biggie," tempest-in-a-teapot sort of thing, effectively spinning details in order to accomplish your goals.

Of course, if Scartch feels differently, his version should be trusted over mine. He knows.

Well, hey---I have tried to rely on your version in the past. The trouble is that your "version" was grossly inaccurate and dishonest.

I do have to hand it to him, however: I have cited numerous instances where he has spun the facts, behaved dishonestly, or just lied outrightly, and yet he always managed to persuade people---often people who have been at odds with him---that he is not a fundamentally dishonest human being.

My fiendish cunning and lack of scruples are legendary.

And are growing more so. Who knows what else you've lied to me about? The Quinn thing? Ritnergate?

I guess the issue that I wonder about the most now that Brent has cleared the air

Which, being interpreted, means "now that Brent has expressed an opinion about the size of the print run and the extent of the distribution of Review 6/1 that differs from the recollections of the Review's editor." [Mister Scratch], of course, immediately assumes that Brent is correct, because he has already assumed that I'm "a fundamentally dishonest human being."

No, I base that judgment off other instances of your dishonesty: such as your "FreeThinker" postings.

is the 2nd Watson Letter. Frankly, I now have to assume that DCP has been lying, and that he and Hamblin forged the letter.

The case, it seems, is closed.

Finis!

Trust [Scratch]. He's an objective observer, with no axe to grind.

Until you produce a scan of the 2nd Letter, I can't see that I really have any other choice. I wouldn't want to be "played for a sucker," after all.

And "axe to grind"? Am I the one who has been spinning tall tales about the print run of the acrostic? Am I the one who engaged in gossipmongering against Mike Quinn for years? Am I the one who carried on a vindictive whisper campaign against Robert Ritner for 6+ years? Am I the one who belongs to a rather vicious and mocking listserve, which I use to gang up on posters I don't like?

[_Daniel Peterson]

That's my point: you *were* in a position to know, and you evidently lied about it.

I told the truth.

To the best of my ability, I typically do.

Well: were you or were you not embarrassed by this episode? Do you feel badly that it happened, and that you guys got "caught"?

I felt that a harmless private joke got out of hand, was misinterpreted, and became an embarrassment.

You have tried to paint the whole affair as a "no biggie," tempest-in-a-teapot sort of thing, effectively spinning details in order to accomplish your goals.

I think it's ridiculous that a few people have sought to keep the thing alive for fifteen years now.

It wasn't that important. It certainly doesn't rank as one of the most significant world events of 1993-1994, nor even as a watershed moment in the history of Mopologetics.

But Professor Hamblin's article was pretty good:

http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/revie ... m=1&id=146

I've noticed that those who like to hyperventilate about The Horrible Acrostic seldom if ever have anything to say about Professor Hamblin's article.

I understand, though, that these people typically have an agenda. You certainly do.

Who knows what else you've lied to me about?

I do.

I've lied to you about nothing.

I've been remarkably patient, if I must say so myself, in submitting to your incessant Scartchoscopies. Though, by your implacable personal hostility, you've deserved nothing from me at all beyond contemptuous silence, I've answered your endless questions and probings rather fully.

The Quinn thing?

There was no "Quinn thing."

Ritnergate?

Even stripping it of your extravagantly grandiose title, there's no there there. This purported "scandal" is and has always been a figment of your fecund imagination.

I base that judgment off other instances of your dishonesty: such as your "FreeThinker" postings.

That's an enormous stretch.

Until you produce a scan of the 2nd Letter, I can't see that I really have any other choice.

Don't be silly. Of course you do.

You could presume, as civil people commonly do in such cases, that I'm acting in good faith. For example.

And "axe to grind"? Am I the one who has been spinning tall tales about the print run of the acrostic?

Nobody's been spinning tall tales about that.

Am I the one who engaged in gossipmongering against Mike Quinn for years?

Well, it certainly wasn't me.

Am I the one who carried on a vindictive whisper campaign against Robert Ritner for 6+ years?

I'm entirely unaware of such a vindictive whisper campaign, so I really couldn't say whether you've been involved in such a thing or not.

Am I the one who belongs to a rather vicious and mocking listserve, which I use to gang up on posters I don't like?

I don't know. I don't even know your name.

But I know you're a vindictive and slanderous goofball.