The Wisdom & Faith of Lehi Cranston

[_Mister Scratch]

I was alerted to the following by one of my "informants." This was posted quite some time ago on the SHIELDS guestbook:

Saturday 02/21/2004 2:22:08am
Name: Lehi Cranston
E-Mail: lhcranston@sbcglobal.net
Homepage Title:
Homepage URL:
Referred By: Just Surfed In
Your Location: Chico, California
Comments: You people at "SHIELDS" should be absolutely ashamed of your actions.

I've read some of your "reviews" and some of your "correspondence" with critics of the Church. I am a life-long member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and I am absolutely embarassed that your brand of dialog about the Church is published on the internet, let alone in print. Your entire defense of my faith appears to consist largely of making childish personal attacks and snide comments (see in particular remarks by Daniel Peterson and Louis Midgely....who ARE these misguided brethern?) about critics of the Church.

Here's a hint: be bigger than those who criticize you, and maybe someone will take you more seriously than they will the critic. Be bigger, kinder, and more in control of the facts and your own argument than those who criticize you, and maybe you'll give the Church a good name. As it is, your tactics are an embarassment to the Church.

Please stop what you are doing. You will drive more people from the Church of Jesus Christ than you will ever help. Thank you.

I am humbled by Brother Cranston's remarks. One wonders if his comments were taken seriously.

[Guest]

The malevolent obsession continues, the "humble" meme lovingly supplied by Gadianton Scratch is adopted by the Master himself, and the creepy network of anonymous "informants" continues dutifully to supply ammunition.

Any and all negative comments ever made by anybody about the chosen target must be gathered, treasured, and circulated, whether made today or (as this one was) five years ago.

Another day in Scratchworld.

[_Mister Scratch]

The malevolent obsession continues, the "humble" meme lovingly supplied by Gadianton Scratch is adopted by the Master himself, and the creepy network of anonymous "informants" continues dutifully to supply ammunition.

Another day in Scratchworld.

What do you think of Cranston's comments?

[_Daniel Peterson]

What do you think of Cranston's comments?

I take them seriously. I regret them. I disagree with them.

I think you're really stretching. I think they're five years old. I don't know who Lehi Cranston is. I might enjoy talking with him.

[_harmony]

What do you think of Cranston's comments?

People change every day. I hope no one brings up something stupid I said 5 years ago and tries to use it as a weapon against who I am now. (Well, that's a vain hope, because of course people do that, and worse, but still... people ought to be allowed to learn and grow beyond today.)

[_Mister Scratch]

What do you think of Cranston's comments?

People change every day. I hope no one brings up something stupid I said 5 years ago and tries to use it as a weapon against who I am now. (Well, that's a vain hope, because of course people do that, and worse, but still... people ought to be allowed to learn and grow beyond today.)

At base, I agree with you, Harmony. The trouble is, DCP claims that he "takes [Cranston's comments seriously." But does he? Is he still doing all of the things Cranston cited? Does he still make "snide comments" and "childish personal attacks"? Or has there been a noticeable effort at change? I am really genuinely curious about this. Not long ago, I asked DCP if he regretted his l-skinny behavior---whether he felt embarrassed, or whether he wished he'd behaved differently.

He said that he didn't, and that he didn't feel the least bit ashamed about any of it. I agree that people ought to be allowed to "learn and grow," however.

[_Yoda]

I am humbled by Brother Cranston's remarks. One wonders if his comments were taken seriously.

I would be interested in seeing the comments that Brother Cranston was referring to so that things could be put into context.

Do you have a link, Scratch?

[_Mister Scratch]

I am humbled by Brother Cranston's remarks. One wonders if his comments were taken seriously.

I would be interested in seeing the comments that Brother Cranston was referring to so that things could be put into context.

Do you have a link, Scratch?

Hi, Liz. You can view Bro. Cranston's comments in the "Old Guestbook" section of SHIELDS. Just scroll down to the bottom of SHIELDS's main page, and you'll be able to link to the guestbook.

Having read a lot of the material at SHIELDS, I would assume that, among other things, Cranston is referring to Professor Peterson and Midgley's interaction with James White. (This is the exchange in which it is revealed that l-skinny is used to conduct gang assaults on Church critics; it's also the time when DCP asked White if the "arrogance meter" that his "mother" have to him was "broken.") So, basically, I would say: read some of the stuff on SHIELDS. I think that Cranston's condemnation is meant to be general.

by the way: His comments were not very well received at all. In a later entry, "Noelie" really rips into him:

Name: Noelie
E-Mail: nefrytatanen@hotmail.com
Homepage Title:
Homepage URL:
Referred By: Just Surfed In
Your Location:
Comments: To the "Saint" who complained of the work that this web page does I suggest he pick up his scriptures ( I can only assume he is telling the truth and is LDS and not a wolf in sheeps clothing) and read: D & C 123: 7,9,11, 123: 1-17 inclusive. And try REALLY hard to understand what this means per your baptismal covenants.
This church needs people that are not afraid to be a "warrior of God" Not afraid of what others think , and not afraid to call a spade a spade. NOTE it says warrior.. not pacifist.
If your too afraid. or you haven't learned anything about how freedoms are usually truly won in the last few years, I suggest you just stay in your own little world, because the real one will be too scary for you to go foward in truth and honesty.
to the creators of this page I thank you. To the anti LDS that try to tell us in thier pitiful little attempts they are correct I laugh. Your fear is telling. If you weren't.. you wouldn't have come here. And yes you should be a afraid, but the true pity is that you won't understand until is too late what you should have been afraid of.

I have a hard time believing that any Mopologist would take Cranston's remark "seriously." It seems to me that the standard feelings regarding this sort of earnest critique is generally akin to "Noelie"'s.

[_harmony]

At base, I agree with you, Harmony. The trouble is, DCP claims that he "takes [Cranston's comments seriously." But does he? Is he still doing all of the things Cranston cited? Does he still make "snide comments" and "childish personal attacks"? Or has there been a noticeable effort at change? I am really genuinely curious about this. Not long ago, I asked DCP if he regretted his l-skinny behavior---whether he felt embarrassed, or whether he wished he'd behaved differently.

He said that he didn't, and that he didn't feel the least bit ashamed about any of it. I agree that people ought to be allowed to "learn and grow," however.

I've been sparring with Daniel for 10 years or so. Yes, he's changed. He's much more mellow than when he was when I first called him to repentence for his arrogance and pride, years ago on Z. Much. And I think that mellowing is manifested in his editorials in FROB.

[_Mister Scratch]

By the way: also of interest in the "Guestbook" (which runs to some 70-odd pages) is the fact that the administrators at SHIELDS apparently engaged in censorship of Richard Packham. Take a look at this message:

Thursday 07/15/2004 2:23:49am
Name: Thomas Brigham
E-Mail: ptbrigham@hotmail.com
Homepage Title:
Homepage URL:
Referred By: Just Surfed In
Your Location:
Comments: I read with interest your information on Oliver Granger; who is he?
By Stanley D. Barker

Just curious why you never printed the response that you received back from Richard Packham, are you biased, or just not interested in presenting both sides?

And Stan Auto Da Fe Barker's reply:

SHIELDS response: Because the response back from Packham held little if any merit. Packham certainly avoided addressing the points that Stan Barker made. The bottom line is that Granger is held in memorial in LDS scripture. Any LDS person who has read the D&C (or non-LDS for that matter) remembers him. Why, EVEN Richard Packham remembers him and is himself memorializing Granger. Packham shoots himself in the foot with this argument. So what is the big issue? This is a classic case of trying to make a mountain out of a molehill and in our view, just plain silly. -- Stan Barker

If it was such a "molehill," why not post it and stamp it out?