Mister Scratch wrote:I must say, I was rather shocked by the staggering amount of double standards on display here. The article is really just a lengthy defense of FARMS's cheap-shot approach.
What makes it all the more confusing is this: My understanding is that Signature's entire complaint was that the word "Korihor" was used so liberally to describe them. According to Signature, this constituted slander since it could cause literal harm by alienating such a huge percentage of their sales base.
So the controversy wasn't one of critique or defining the word "Mormon" or "anti-Mormon." It was all about slander and customer bases.
Did DCP address this baseline issue in his article at all?
No, not really. He mentioned the internal memo that somehow got leaked to George Smith---the memo which Smith interpreted as an order to ban Signature books from the BYU bookstore. But, DCP did not cite any text from the memo, and instead forces the reader to simply trust that his interpretation is accurate.
Mister Scratch wrote:Think about it for a moment: how much of the decision to revise the Book of Mormon intro was based on revelation given to the Brethren vs. apologetic theory? Another telling piece of evidence, in my opinion, was Bill Hamblin's ability to get Michael Watson to revise his "One Cumorah" letter. Yet another is the fact that DCP was "tapped" by the SCMC to try and persuade an intellectually struggling member to stay in the Church. The bottom line, in my opinion, is that FARMS is controlling the intellectual direction of the Church, and thus, by extension, it is reformulating and reinterpreting doctrine to the extent that Mormonism is beginning to seem more like a pernicious form of gnosticism.
True, revisions such as these boost your point, and I'm not entirely skeptical to what you or Gad have been saying, nor blind to the fact that the future could, probably will, be very different to the past. 20th century Mormonism is very different to 19th century Mormonism, in my opinion. I'm always open to new ideas, and even to go into places I thought the least likely to produce outcomes I at one time may have felt impossible, or even ridiculous. > > > > >
Mister Scratch wrote:Think about it for a moment: how much of the decision to revise the Book of Mormon intro was based on revelation given to the Brethren vs. apologetic theory? Another telling piece of evidence, in my opinion, was Bill Hamblin's ability to get Michael Watson to revise his "One Cumorah" letter. Yet another is the fact that DCP was "tapped" by the SCMC to try and persuade an intellectually struggling member to stay in the Church. The bottom line, in my opinion, is that FARMS is controlling the intellectual direction of the Church, and thus, by extension, it is reformulating and reinterpreting doctrine to the extent that Mormonism is beginning to seem more like a pernicious form of gnosticism.
This paragraph, in whole and in every detail, is completely estranged from reality.
But I now realize the utter futility of pointing that fact out here.
Mister Scratch wrote: Mormonism is beginning to seem more like a pernicious form of gnosticism.
I'm not sure about the "pernicious", but that's a conclusion Harold Bloom already reached:
The God of Joseph Smith is a daring revival of the God of some of the Kabbalists and Gnostics, prophetic sages who, like Smith himself, asserted that they had returned to the true religion....Mormonism is a purely American Gnosis, for which Joseph Smith was and is a far more crucial figure than Jesus could be. Smith is not just 'a' prophet, another prophet, but he is the essential prophet of these latter days, leading into the end time, whenever it comes.(The American Religion)
The bottom line, in my opinion, is that FARMS is controlling the intellectual direction of the Church, and thus, by extension, it is reformulating and reinterpreting doctrine to the extent that Mormonism is beginning to seem more like a pernicious form of gnosticism.
(Chuckle) hahaha, nobody could've said better. The Brass is covering their ass while FARMS is taking up to it! It is such a wonderful & symbiotic relationship. They deserve each-other.
The bottom line, in my opinion, is that FARMS is controlling the intellectual direction of the Church, and thus, by extension, it is reformulating and reinterpreting doctrine to the extent that Mormonism is beginning to seem more like a pernicious form of gnosticism.
(Chuckle) hahaha, nobody could've said better. The Brass is covering their ass while FARMS is taking up to it! It is such a wonderful & symbiotic relationship. They deserve each-other.
But does the rest of the church... the members who are just trying to live the best they can... deserve either?
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Mister Scratch wrote:Think about it for a moment: how much of the decision to revise the Book of Mormon intro was based on revelation given to the Brethren vs. apologetic theory? Another telling piece of evidence, in my opinion, was Bill Hamblin's ability to get Michael Watson to revise his "One Cumorah" letter. Yet another is the fact that DCP was "tapped" by the SCMC to try and persuade an intellectually struggling member to stay in the Church. The bottom line, in my opinion, is that FARMS is controlling the intellectual direction of the Church, and thus, by extension, it is reformulating and reinterpreting doctrine to the extent that Mormonism is beginning to seem more like a pernicious form of gnosticism.
This paragraph, in whole and in every detail, is completely estranged from reality.
But I now realize the utter futility of pointing that fact out here.
Carry on.
Is that the best you've got, Professor P.? If you had a real point---a real counterargument---I would think that you'd easily be able to present it. For example, can you name an instance when one of the modern Brethren somehow altered FARMS research in some substantive intellectual way? Can you supply some reason beyond the one I've posited as to why the SCMC would phone you up? Can you tell us why you believe M. Watson altered his views, and/or what Bill Hamblin's letter said?
Mister Scratch wrote:Is that the best you've got, Professor P.?
No. It's not.
But it's the most I'm going to give.
It would be (yet another) exercise in futility to try to discuss this nonsense with you.
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)
Mister Scratch wrote:Is that the best you've got, Professor P.?
No. It's not.
But it's the most I'm going to give.
It would be (yet another) exercise in futility to try to discuss this nonsense with you.
How could an actual answer possibly be any more futile that your refusal to answer to very serious questions, or your "standard responses"? Just the other day, your staunch supporter LifeOnaPlate conceded the merit and significance of the thesis that FARMS has something of a "monolithic" structure. What this means is that you are losing ground.
Here, now, we have evidence that FARMS was engaged in smear tactics against Signature Books, and there appears to be a significant allegation that FARMS was complicit with the BYU bookstore in looking to squelch Signature's market. Do you really have no counter to this?
Mister Scratch wrote:there appears to be a significant allegation that FARMS was complicit with the BYU bookstore in looking to squelch Signature's market. Do you really have no counter to this?
As you know perfectly well, I denied it then. So did the FARMS person and the bookstore official.
I flatly deny it now.
So what? Here in Bizarro Scartchworld, there's really no point.
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)