The Wisdom & Faith of Lehi Cranston

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

Huh. Well, I'm certainly inclined to defer to your greater experience and knowledge. Could you elaborate a bit more, though? I.e., what is it in the editorials that seems "mellower" to you? For example, did you find "The Witchcraft Paradigm", which is only a couple of years old, to be "mellow" in the sense that you mean?

[_Yoda]

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.

Well, I have to say that I'm rather embarrassed for Noelie. His/her writing skills need help.

Thanks for the reference. I'll have a look.

I will say that Harmony does bring up a valid point. Even if Daniel's comments were vicious, this did occur five years ago. A lot can change.

Is there anything more recent in this same realm of posting that would lend credence to your view that Daniel is basically callous toward Church critics?

To be honest, simply based on the participation here, I would say that both BC and Bob are a lot more callous and argumentative than Daniel, when it comes to dealing with critics.

[_Gadianton]

I do think it's interesting that someone completely independent of Scratch held some of the same reservations about the work of Shields, I believe it would have been a year or two before Scratch even entered the scene.

[_Gadianton]

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

A strong point. In fact, this seems to be the bread and butter of Shields to parade around what they think are the silliest, most inane material by critics so they can laugh at it. If it were as useless of a response as they insist, then they really would have put it up in bold. I can only infer that Packham took them apart, and they were embarrassed about it.

[_harmony]

I do think it's interesting that someone completely independent of Scratch held some of the same reservations about the work of Shields, I believe it would have been a year or two before Scratch even entered the scene.

Stan Barker is a wart on the buttocks of the church. He is an embarrassment and his website isn't worth commenting on. Add to that that he has no idea how stupid he sounds.

[_Daniel Peterson]

1) While I genuinely appreciate harmony's attempt to distance Current Me from Former Me, I don't really think I've changed much.

2) I'm a reasonably decent guy. People who know me seem to like me, by and large. I have lots of friends, in and out of the Church.

3) Being a pleasant person who values kindness -- Scratch, your smelling salts are in the upper drawer to your left -- comments such as those posted five years ago by "Lehi Cranston" do trouble me. I take them seriously, and I think about them. But, on the whole, I believe they're misconceived.

[_Joey]

1) While I genuinely appreciate harmony's attempt to distance Current Me from Former Me, I don't really think I've changed much.

2) I'm a reasonably decent guy. People who know me seem to like me, by and large. I have lots of friends, in and out of the Church.

Wow. At first pass, I thought I was reading the transcripts from Gov. Blagojevich's press conference this past Friday.

[_Mister Scratch]

3) Being a pleasant person who values kindness -- Scratch, your smelling salts are in the upper drawer to your left -- comments such as those posted five years ago by "Lehi Cranston" do trouble me. I take them seriously, and I think about them. But, on the whole, I believe they're misconceived.

ROFLOL!!!! Wow, this is just about as funny as your claims that my "paranoia" is just a ruse. "A pleasant person who values kindness"??? LOL!! Whew! Thanks for the laugh, Professor P.

Okay.... <ahem> More seriously, why do you think Cranston's remarks are "misconceived", and why do you put his name is "scare quotes"? Do you assume that he is lying about his name? (I would think that you wouldn't do that, given your purported valuation of kindness.)

[_Droopy]

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.

This is an excellent example of what Rush Limbaugh, in the world of talk radio, calls a "seminar caller"; a hostile critic pretending to be a conservative who first lists his conservative credentials and then proceeds to launch an attack on on conservative values or principles. The point of this is to give the appearance of insider objectivity to specific criticisms and biases.

What we appear to have here is a seminar (his own perhaps) poster. The vast majority of those in apologetics or concerned with criticisms of the Church do not feel this way about SHIELDS or their work. When you see one odd 8 ball such as this on the table red flags should summarily appear.

And for heaven's sake Scratch, don't call him "brother" Cranston. You're not a Mormon and you never have been.

When will the pretense end?

[_Droopy]

What do you think of Cranston's comments?

You don't know? Cranston is what is normally known is cyberspace as a Troll.

How could anyone have missed this?