Stan Barker and Tabloid Mopologetics

[Physics Guy]

I sit aghast before my computer. This is due is part to my having done a great deal of self-reflection lately. Am I wrong? Am I a bad person? Do I deserve to be hurt, as Prof. Peterson and The Nehor have suggested? Am I merely a "smear-meister," as Jason Bourne has said? I sure hope not. Indeed, if I am as much of a "monster" as these and other individuals have suggested, then perhaps I ought to make a permanent exodus from the messageboard.

But then I receive a PM from a loyal "informant," and I know that my work---such as it is---is far from done. On another thread, DCP suggested that Lehi Cranston (whose name the Good Professor put in quotes, as if to suggest that Cranston is a troll) was "wrong" and "misguided" in his criticism of Mopologetic antics. Perhaps DCP has overlooked some things, though? In any event, what follows is surely one of the more shameful moments in Mopologetic history. (And no---I don't think it is a "watershed" moment. I merely find it indicative of the essential nature of DCP-led Mopologetics.)

Many here are no doubt familiar with Walter Martin, who has been the target of a great deal of Mopologetic scorn. He was treated to endless, puerile ridicule over his possession of a degree-mill Ph.D. (Really, why rely on this? Why not show how his arguments are flawed?) Indeed, Martin, who was always called '"Dr." Walter Martin' (quotation marks sic) by the Mopologists, was mistreated by them even in his death.

After he died, a story, circulated by Ed Decker, told that Martin died while on his knees, in a posture of prayer. Whether true or not, it seems hard to find fault with this story. In other words, one would be hard-pressed to find reason to bicker with it, or pick at it. And yet, that is precisely what the SHIELDS Mopologists did.

http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/Mar_myth.htm

Here is the opening of the SHIELDS posting:

"Dr." Walter Martin passed away in 1989. Since then, a myth has been circulating about his physical position at the time of his death. To the best of our knowledge, this myth was first made public by Ed Decker, of the anti-Mormon Saints Alive in Jesus ministry, as apparently told to him by Martin's widow. One or both of these two people know best why what appears to have been a rather common situation of Martin's death was modified into a myth the purpose of which seems to be that of boosting his flagging reputation.

Notice the rather subtle way that this author is calling Decker and Martin's widow "liars." Read on, and decide for yourself whether this accusation is really justified. This next passage is from Decker, and was originally published in the Saints Alive newsletter:

The news of Dr. Walter Martin's sudden death came to me in the middle of a noontime talk show on Seattle's KCIS. The Engineer slipped a note to me asking that I announce his death, while I was talking live about Freemasonry. I slipped my eyes to the note while I talked, thinking it had something to do with the subject. I was stunned! This had to be someone's idea of a very sick joke. As I read the note over and over, I became aware that the broadcast had gone silent. It took me almost several minutes to compose myself and speak again.

Needless to say, that was the end of the Masonry program and we spent the rest of the time sharing about my good friend and counselor who was also a might man of God.

Right after the program, Carol and I spoke to Darlene, Walter's wife. She knew that Walter was with the Lord. On June 26th, early in the morning, Darlene found Walter in the next room kneeling in a praying position. After a while, she went over and to gently encourage him to return to bed. However, Walter had quietly and peacefully gone to be with his Savior and Lord.

Walter Martin, then, died in a prayerful position. It is a fine, kind-hearted story. I ask again: why would anyone seek to find fault with this? But, having just typed that line, I realize that the word "anyone" does not really apply to the Mopologists.

Somebody at SHIELDS took it upon themselves to look quite deeply into this death story. Some here have criticized me for "digging" in the ZLMB files, or for discussing things that are "five years old." But look what the SHIELDS Mopologists went and got:

http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/mar_dth.htm

What kind of a person, one has to wonder, would do this? What kind of person(s) would support SHIELDS after a stunt like this? Was the "perp" behind this stunt ever reprimanded? Regardless, let it be known that, even in death, the Mopologists will not show you even the most basic kind of respect.

Here is SHIELDS again, quoting from the police report:

I spoke with the deceased's wife, Darlene Martin. She told me her husband was a diabetic and had Coronary Artery Disease. She said that about four years ago Mr. Martin's doctor advised him to have a bypass, but Mr. Martin opted to change his condition by improving his diet. She also said he had his arteries surgically "cleaned" about 5 years ago.

Mrs. Martin told me that she "awoke at approximately 0600 hours. Since her husband was not in bed she looked into the bathroom and discovered her husband's body. Mrs. Martin then called Police.

And the SHIELDS commentary:

It is our understanding that it is not at all uncommon for people to die while on the toilet, and it is certainly no disgrace to "Dr." Martin or his family for this to have happened to him. It seems that not only in life did "Dr." Martin attempt to build a myth about his understanding of the LDS faith, his relationship to Brigham Young, and his academic credentials, but with his death some of his family and/or friends felt the need to extend the "Martin Myth" to include a "holy passing." Such a need is a sad commentary on the nature of those in what Dr. Midgley refers to as the "countercult industry," a major portion of the efforts of which go into criticizing the LDS Church.

Notice the tone of righteous indignation here, and of jubilantly malign vindication. "Martin deserved it!" this author seems to say. At heart, this sort of posting seems no better, and indeed, seems even worse, than spitting on someone's grave. I know that I am not alone in thinking this. The following are from the SHIELDS guestbook:

(And this first person, if I'm not mistaken, is MAD regular Bsix):

Monday 12/14/1998 4:31:29pm
Name: Kim Bellomy
E-Mail: bellomy6@aol.com
Homepage Title:
Homepage URL: http://
Referred By: Just Surfed On In
Location: Utah
Comments: Thanks for your website. I visit frequently. I am, however, distressed to see one of your latest additions over the weekend.

I question the need to point out the fact that a critic of the LDS church died while going to the bathroom. I find it tasteless
and of little value. Yes, perhaps Mrs. Martin sought to create a little myth about the circumstances
surrounding the passing of "Dr" Martin. Yes, Ed Decker may cite that story for propaganda purposes. What advantage is
Decker really getting out of this little fabrication? How much does this story really effect the big picture? Is that story
widely circulated or used by Mormon critics? Is it of sufficeint currency that it requires an expose in response?

I cannot help wonder if we debase ourselves by responding on an issue of such little importance. I think that the
story comes off as a cheap shot. It seems petty and mean. It sounds like the mean-spirited thing we accuse
our critics of doing. Frankly it feels like Tabloid Apologetics.

I think that SHIELDS hurts itself with a story like this.
Leave the low brow stuff to our critics.

Notice the date. This SHIELDS piece has been up and running for nearly ten years. During that time, Midgley, DCP, and now Tvedtnes continued to ally themselves with SHIELDS, and to contribute articles, "spoofs," and supposedly private email correspondence.

Here are more outraged replies:

Tuesday 06/01/1999 6:49:53am
Name: Samuel Merrill
E-Mail: samuelmerrill@hotmail.com
Homepage Title:
Homepage URL: http://www.angelfire.com/nm/samuelmerrill
Referred By: From a Web Ring
Location: New Mexico but soon moving to Provo
Comments: I really enjoyed your website and am very happy to see some material that
LDS members can use against the abundant anti-mormon rhetoric. I personally
come under attack constantly and I have to be honest, there were times that I
had no response to some of the cunning half truths and outright lies. with this site and the F.A.R.M.S.
Research site I have "improved" my responses considerably. I have one negative
comment though. I was disappointed to see the article on Walter Martin's
death. It is not worthy of any of you, please remove it. It is offensive and disrespectful
to Walter Martin's surviving family. Not a Christian thing to do at all. As a fellow member
I beg of you, please remove it. You don't need an article of this type on this site. The truth
speaks for itself and speaks to the heart. You are doing a wonderful job don't resort to the
tactics of the adversary and his minion. All my love and hope to you and your continued
efforts. May the Lord bless and keep you in his tender care.

I wonder: Does DCP think that these two individuals deserve to have their names in "scare quotes," like Lehi Cranston? Does he think this sort of criticism, like Cranston's, is "misguided"? I'd love to hear him weigh in on this. Obviously, his continued participation on SHIELDS counts as a kind of "nod of approval," since he was and still is the top Mopologist.

Here is one final complaint:

Name: Susan Anderson
E-Mail: s_anderson@asnw.com
Homepage Title:
Homepage URL: http://donthaveone.com
Referred By: Just Surfed On In
Location: detroit
Comments: Your website is filth! I can't believe you would post aritcles on the late Walter Martin. I just can't believe that anyone claiming to be "Godly" could stoop so low. Do you think for a moment that the person who you were trying to make look bad about lying, might be trying to help Dr. Martins family and letting him go in dignity???? Have you no respect. That man was a great man of God.

YOU disgust me! You website is a complete turnoff to the Mormon faith.

Sincerely,
Susan

Wow. One wonders why SHIELDS didn't delete the material, let alone issue an apology. While I have seen a lot of dirty deeds on the part of Mopologists over the years, I think this ices the cake. The disrespect from the dead here is quite astonishing. But, I guess the lesson is clear: don't ever cross the Mopologists, or they will hunt you down, looking to smear you even in death.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Am I wrong?

Yes.

Am I a bad person?

Possibly.

Do I deserve to be hurt, as Prof. Peterson and The Nehor have suggested?

Some people enjoy the frights, tingles, and shrieks that they experience by watching horror movies.

You seem to get a thrill out of concocting fictional threats and imagining yourself to be in physical danger. Maybe, if you haven't already, you should take up bungee jumping?

Am I merely a "smear-meister," as Jason Bourne has said?

I think he's pretty much nailed it.

Indeed, if I am as much of a "monster" as these and other individuals have suggested, then perhaps I ought to make a permanent exodus from the messageboard.

I think that would be a good idea.

IBut then I receive a PM from a loyal "informant," and I know that my work---such as it is---is far from done.

ROTFL.

In any event, what follows is surely one of the more shameful moments in Mopologetic history.

Naturally.

Many here are no doubt familiar with Walter Martin, who has been the target of a great deal of Mopologetic scorn. Indeed, it was Martin who "leaked" the gang-style tactics of the l-skinny crew.

??????

He died in 1989.

I can't remember whether I even had internet access at that time. I know for a fact that Skinny-L didn't exist then.

I merely find it indicative of the essential nature of DCP-led Mopologetics.

"Mopologetics" isn't a monolith or an organization, and I don't "lead" it.

I've permitted some things of mine to be posted on SHIELDS, but I have nothing whatever to do with the running of that website. I don't even look at it very often.

What on earth has this episode got to do with me?

How in the world am I responsible or accountable for it -- let alone such Latter-day Saint scholars/apologists as Richard Lloyd Anderson, John Clark, John W. Welch, Blake Ostler, Kevin Barney, Royal Skousen, James Allen, or John Butler?

I have no idea what position or room Walter Martin's body was in when he died, and I would never have written anything on the subject.

Your malevolent obsession with me continually requires you to make ridiculous stretches like this. You really ought to give it a rest.

[_Mister Scratch]

Many here are no doubt familiar with Walter Martin, who has been the target of a great deal of Mopologetic scorn. Indeed, it was Martin who "leaked" the gang-style tactics of the l-skinny crew.

??????

He died in 1989.

I can't remember whether I even had internet access at that time. I know for a fact that Skinny-L didn't exist then.

Ah, yes! You're right. I was confusing him with James White. My apologies. I will amend the OP to reflect this. Thank you for the correction.

I merely find it indicative of the essential nature of DCP-led Mopologetics.

"Mopologetics" isn't a monolith or an organization, and I don't "lead" it.

You're right. Some "Mopologists"---like Terryl Givens and R. Bushman are good, earnest people who want to do right by the Church. Other Mopologists, like G. Novak, L. Midgley, and yourself, conduct Mopologetics by attacking and smearing people, and by spitting on their graves.

I've permitted some things of mine to be posted on SHIELDS, but I have nothing whatever to do with the running of that website. I don't even look at it very often.

What on earth has this episode got to do with me?

Whoever said that it *did* have to do with you? As I see it, this is about methods. On the other thread, you stated that Lehi Cranston was "misguided" and that you disagreed with his criticism of Mopologetic methods. You felt that he was wrong in referring to Mopologetics as "petty" and "juvenile."

Well, now that you've seen this material on W. Martin, would you care to revise your comments? Would you care to admit that Cranston had a very legitimate point? Or, would you prefer say instead that the above-mentioned SHIELDS piece gets your stamp of approval?

How in the world am I responsible or accountable for it -- let alone such Latter-day Saint scholars/apologists as Richard Lloyd Anderson, John Clark, John W. Welch, Blake Ostler, Kevin Barney, Royal Skousen, James Allen, or John Butler?

No one is saying your are "responsible or accountable for it." Calm down, Prof. P. Instead, I am saying that, as per your post on the other thread, you seem to think that Cranston's criticism of that kind of material is "misguided." Do you? Or do you approve of the SHIELDS piece?

I have no idea what position or room Walter Martin's body was in when he died, and I would never have written anything on the subject.

Yes; of course. One of your SHIELDS buddies wrote something on the subject. Do you approve? Do you disagree still with Bro. Cranston?

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'm responsible for what I do, not for what others do. I don't answer for them, and they don't answer for me.

I share your admiration for Terryl Givens and Richard Bushman, though. They're both friends of mine, and I like them very much. They've had me speak to their seminars at BYU, and Richard had me come down to speak for a program of his Hunter Chair at Claremont about a year ago. We've been involved together, and still are, in a number of capacities.

Other Mopologists, like G. Novak, L. Midgley, and yourself, conduct Mopologetics by attacking and smearing people, and by spitting on their graves.

That's good stuff. I like the image!

It would make a great horror movie.

Do you think you might be able to get Freddie Kruger to play me?

[_Daniel Peterson]

What on earth has this episode got to do with me?

Whoever said that it *did* have to do with you?

You did:

I . . . find it indicative of the essential nature of DCP-led Mopologetics.

This is the way some here play the game. A thread is launched or a note posted that attacks me. I respond to it. At that point, I'm accused of whining and of attempting to hijack the thread.

The old French saying Cet animal est très méchant; quand on l'attaque, il se défend always comes to mind in such cases: "This animal is very wicked; if you attack it, it defends itself."

[_Mister Scratch]

Whoever said that it *did* have to do with you?

You did:

I . . . find it indicative of the essential nature of DCP-led Mopologetics.

This is the way some here play the game. A thread is launched or a note posted that attacks me. I respond to it. At that point, I'm accused of whining and of attempting to hijack the thread.

Uh, no. The subject of the sentence is "Mopologetics." Unless you view yourself as being defined by Mopologetics, then I don't really think that this is about "you", per se.

Anyways, you are dodging the main issue. I'll continue to ask until you provide an honest answer: Do you still stand by your "rebuttal" to Lehi Cranston, in light of this SHIELDS piece?

[_Daniel Peterson]

I . . . find it indicative of the essential nature of DCP-led Mopologetics.

The subject of the sentence is "Mopologetics."

No, the subject of the sentence above is the first-person singular personal pronoun "I."

Anyways, you are dodging the main issue. I'll continue to ask until you provide an honest answer: Do you still stand by your "rebuttal" to Lehi Cranston, in light of this SHIELDS piece?

I offered no "rebuttal" to "Lehi Cranston."

So you can go ahead and keep asking, if you like.

[_Mister Scratch]

Anyways, you are dodging the main issue. I'll continue to ask until you provide an honest answer: Do you still stand by your "rebuttal" to Lehi Cranston, in light of this SHIELDS piece?

I offered no "rebuttal" to "Lehi Cranston."

So you can go ahead and keep asking, if you like.

This was your response to Cranston's criticism:

What do you think of Cranston's comments?

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

In light of the SHIELDS piece, do you still disagree with Cranston? This is a very simple yes-or-no question. Why are you having such difficulty answering it?

[_Mister Scratch]

I . . . find it indicative of the essential nature of DCP-led Mopologetics.

The subject of the sentence is "Mopologetics."

No, the subject of the sentence above is the first-person singular personal pronoun "I."

Lol. What, in the strictly grammatical sense? Well, okay. Fair enough. But that still means that you are wrong. It's not, as you insist "about you." D'oh! (Odd how you are getting crushed on this point by Dr. Robbers on the other thread. Is it a coincidence that there are two separate threads ongoing in which you insist that the threads are "all about you"? Or is it just narcissism?)

[_Daniel Peterson]

Silly Scratch.

Your malevolently obsessive agenda is so hilariously transparent that it's really quite amusing to see you trying to play the naïve ingenue.

I disagreed with a generalization about a wide range of posts, particularly posts involving me and/or Louis Midgley.

That somebody else, not Louis Midgley and not I, did something of which I'm not overly fond is entirely consistent with my continued rejection of the broader generalization.

Odd how you are getting crushed on this point by Dr. Robbers on the other thread.

Odd that you should imagine that I am.