FARMS H-bombs the Three Nephites

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Check out the other thread, LoaP.

I did. They weren't olive branches, they were demands that DCP stop doing things you don't like, or else you will continue your harassment.

Personally, I think anyone intelligent who pays close attention to your repeated claims will begin to see your fixation and disregard your accusations of DCP as strange and irrelevant. I think DCP's best course of action would be to completely ignore you.

[_Ray A]

And again, I would like to see even one example of you offering a "truce" to DCP.

He did on at least one occasion I can verify when I intervened and tried to stop the feuding between them so we could see more balanced exchanges, but unfortunately this has a long history with no easy solutions. I'm on record as saying that I'd love to know "what motivates Scratch", and that he obviously feels this way "for a reason". Mike Ash has been prepared to "talk" to Scratch, even if not agree with him, but Mike is hardly what I would call a John The Baptist on steroids. My feeling is that Mike loathes "unproductive conflict" and for that reason largely stays away from forums.

You obviously want to understand Scratch better, as I do, and I think your gestures have been genuine. Frankly, I'm very surprised Scratch even suggested this meeting with DCP, because I never expected that. If it did occur, perhaps it's the only way to even come close to some kind of "truce", even if ending in nothing more than an agreement to disagree.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Okay. I accept the Scartchmeister's invitation in the spirit of science.

I'll bring my camera, too. I'll post the photographs here after our lunch.

Wait a second... Why would you want to do that? The plot thickens!

I don't see why I should know who you are and what you look like while others here don't.

Some plot.

When and where, Scartch? Are you paying?

Sure, I'll pay.

Great!

How about the Tree Room, at Sundance?

(Though given FARMS's deep pockets, I don't really see why I should.)

The people who donate to the Maxwell Institute haven't done so in order to feed you or me for a private lunch.

You can choose the venue yourself. Chuck-O-rama, perhaps?

Nope. The Tree Room.

Or maybe La Caille.

And, of course, you'll have to identify yourself. I don't do lunch with people who refuse to give their names. Can my wife come?

Yes, your wife can come. (Does she want to? Have you really been so upset by my criticisms of you and FARMS that you have "unburdened" yourself on your wife? If so... wow.)

Nope. She's never heard of you.

And, no. I see no reason why I should share my name with you, of all people.

Ah, so you intend to preserve your ability to slander anonymously.

Do you want to know so that you can do to me what you have done to Mike Quinn, Grant Palmer, Robert Ritner, Brent Metcalfe, Dan Vogel, Simon Southerton, Steve Benson, and countless others?

No. You're not important enough to visit the public horrors and crimes upon you that I've visited upon them.

So I'm supposed to go out with somebody who won't identify himself and whom I have reason to believe is at least somewhat unbalanced?

Ray is confident that you're not violent. I think you're probably not. But I know that it's often the dog that doesn't bark that does the most damage. Your hatred for me has been so intense and unyielding for so long that, quite truthfully, I think it's possible that you're dangerous.

After all, I know nothing about you. Nothing. Except that you're obsessed with your hatred of me. That isn't exactly reassuring.

[_Mister Scratch]

Check out the other thread, LoaP.

I did. They weren't olive branches, they were demands that DCP stop doing things you don't like, or else you will continue your harassment.

Personally, I think anyone intelligent who pays close attention to your repeated claims will begin to see your fixation and disregard your accusations of DCP as strange and irrelevant.

Hey, LoaP: I would be the first to admit that I can carry a grudge like nobody's business. However, I disagree with you: I think that a great many intelligent people can quite easily see that the Good Professor has engaged in some genuinely unsavory behavior. Intelligent people can see that he completely and utterly refuses to concede anything, and he refuses to either apologize for or concede to the fact (or even possiblity!) that he has done wrong.

I think DCP's best course of action would be to completely ignore you.

Oh, I agree. But he is incapable of doing that.

[_Mister Scratch]

No. You're not important enough to visit the public horrors and crimes upon you that I've visited upon them.

I don't believe you for a second. In fact, one of the reasons I feel you deserve to have the spotlight shined upon you is because you utterly refuse to admit the wrongs you've done. In every instance---whether it is your gossipmongering against Quinn & Ritner, your editor-guided dogpiling on Vogel, Metcalfe, and Palmer; your l-skinny cheap shots---*all* of this is fair game in your book. *ALL* of it is a-okay! When are we going to see signs from you that you have a conscience? When will you at last admit that, in fact, you haven't always behaved in quite so Christ-like a fashion?

Ray is confident that you're not violent. I think you're probably not. But I know that it's often the dog that doesn't bark that does the most damage. Your hatred for me has been so intense and unyielding for so long that, quite truthfully, I think it's possible that you're dangerous.

The same could be said of your hatred (or "contempt"?) for me. Or your "hatred" for any number of Church critics and/or ex-Mormons.

After all, I know nothing about you. Nothing. Except that you're obsessed with your hatred of me. That isn't exactly reassuring.

I know next to nothing about you beyond your apologetics and your disgusting treatment of countless individuals.

[_GoodK]

Of course.

My right hand is still moist with DCP spittle.

Come on, let's not start out with this again. GoodK, do you see any extended truce to DCP by scratch, ever?

I'm willing to extend my hand in a cyber-handshake to you.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I don't believe you for a second.

Of course you don't!

Your Malevolence wouldn't be the supreme high pontiff of Scartchodoxy if you failed to affirm the dogma that I'm a liar.

The following is a standard response: Master Scartch has devoted himself since at least 2006 to publicly defaming me while maintaining his anonymity. I flatly deny virtually every allegation Master Scartch has ever made against me, and this one is no exception. I regard Master Scartch as an obsessive and malevolent loon, and have decided to refrain from further gratifying his weird fixation on me and those connected with me. Attempting conversation with him over the past many months has accomplished precisely nothing, and is, plainly, a complete waste of my time, especially given the fact that it's his self-described "mission" and "amusement" to be "perceived" by "Mopologists" as "full of hate." (Scartch, MDB, 1 October 2008)

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'm willing to extend my hand in a cyber-handshake to you.

The Scartchmeister was willing to call a truce with me provided I agreed to all of his demands.

How touching.

[_Yoda]

So, it would make sense that the FARMS Review would launch a full-blown nuclear strike against anything which would even remotely try to posit the Three Nephites as a legitimate doctrinal truth.

Scratch, I read the FARMS review of "About the Three Nephites", and I didn't get that impression at all.

In his opening statement, Richard Hill, the reviewer, stated that his purpose in reviewing the book was to review the attribution methodology to further strengthen the support of the actual Three Nephites doctrine, rather than further purporting simply "Mormon urban legends".

This is his opening statement:

My purpose in reviewing this book is not to question the eyewitness claims of sincere Latter-day Saints of supernatural visitations by the Three Nephites. I believe, as the Lord has clearly stated, that the three Nephite disciples will perform a marvelous ministry on the earth until his Second Coming (3 Nephi 28). Rather, my purpose is to review the content, research, editing, and attribution methodology of this book.

Bold emphasis mine

Based on Hill's opening statement, I think that your OP is misplaced. I don't see a "nuclear strike" against the Three Nephites happening here. As a matter of fact, I see the opposite.

I think that Hill was particularly hard on the author of this book because the incidents within the book were not documented well, and Hill wanted to make sure that any reference to the Three Nephites was tightly documented so that it wouldn't suffer "Mormon urban legend syndrome".

Now, to be fair, I haven't read the actual book. I'm just basing my conclusions on the review.

I would actually have to read the book in order to gain a full perspective on how accurate or inaccurate the review was.

I don't, however, get the feeling that there is some attack on the subject matter of the Three Nephites based on the FARMS review. Just my two cents.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Hey, LoaP: I would be the first to admit that I can carry a grudge like nobody's business. However, I disagree with you: I think that a great many intelligent people can quite easily see that the Good Professor has engaged in some genuinely unsavory behavior. Intelligent people can see that he completely and utterly refuses to concede anything, and he refuses to either apologize for or concede to the fact (or even possiblity!) that he has done wrong.

You're welcome to that opinion. I also know other people who don't like Dan Peterson. They usually write an article or something, and let it be. Some avoid him. Some make jokes about him.

There are others who like Dan Peterson.

None of them mount such a campaign (ineffective though it is) as you have done.

I think DCP's best course of action would be to completely ignore you.

Oh, I agree. But he is incapable of doing that.

And you are incapable of ignoring him.