Why Did the BYU Apologists Split with SHIELDS?

[_Gadianton]

Thanks Doctor Scratch. This is a subject you know vastly better than I do and I appreciate your patience.

I think it's fair to say then, that there were certain individuals who are now prominant at the MI who at one time held some interest in SHIELDS and participated in some way or another. Those individuals over time participated less with SHIELDS and more with FARMS. There has to be an explanation for this.

[_Sethbag]

DCP -> Celestial -> Terrestirall -> Telestilal -> Outer Darkness

You spellt TelestiLOL wrong.

[_Jersey Girl]

DCP -> Celestial -> Terrestirall -> Telestilal -> Outer Darkness

You spellt TelestiLOL wrong.

He spelt Terrestirall rong, two, bud I luvd it ene way.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Thanks Doctor Scratch. This is a subject you know vastly better than I do and I appreciate your patience.

Scratch knows essentially nothing. Gadianton is aware of this. He's spoofing, as usual.

[_Paracelsus]

[!quote="Jersey Girl"][!quote="Sethbag"][!quote="LifeOnaPlate"]DCP -> Celestial -> Terrestirall -> Telestilal -> Outer Darkness[!/quote]
You spellt TelestiLOL wrong. [!/quote]
He spelt Terrestirall rong, two, bud I luvd it ene way.
[!/quote]


To be serious and off
as far as I know
- celestial means heavenly - it is himmlisch in german
- terrestrial means earthly - it is irdisch in german
- telestial means nothing outside of Mormonism, no such word in german or in any other language
The result is:
In the LuB ( = D&C) the word celestial and terrestrial remain unchanged. Plus there is the telestial. Three weird, strange word in our language.

Do You know, what variants of cretinstial words are used by the ... ehm ... less educated members?

In french there it is less problem. (There is a french speaking branch in our family.) They have the existing words "céleste" and "terrestre", only the "téleste" is to invent.

[_Doctor Scratch]

There's been no break with SHIELDS.

When, during the last 8+ years, have you submitted email (or, heck, even messageboard) exchanges to be posted on SHIELDS? When, during the last eight years, have you submitted *anything* that would add to their "Scholarly and Historical Information Exchange"?

There was never any affiliation with SHIELDS.

Then how would you characterize your relationship with SHIELDS? You obviously fed them dozens of pages of text. And you collaborated with them on the "Hurlbut" and "Korihor/Nehor" awards. How is that *NOT* an "affiliation"?

If anything really changed for me, it was my increased participation on boards such as this one. There's only so much time in the day.

That doesn't make any sense at all. Above, you said that you interact with Barker more or less the same as you did back when you were firing off 5,000-word polemical emails to critics. Substitute your MB posts with the emails and Bingo! we can see that the only thing that's changed is the fact that you (and Hamblin, and Midgley) have distanced yourself from SHIELDS. You said on another thread that you didn't exactly like some of SHIELDS's low tactics (though you nevertheless sympathized).... Is that what led to this "separation"?

[_Daniel Peterson]

There's been no "separation."

Accordingly, there's been no separation requiring that I explain it.

You're making this up, as is your wont.

[_Doctor Scratch]

There's been no "separation."

Accordingly, there's been no separation requiring that I explain it.

You're making this up, as is your wont.

You're equivocating. The evidence clearly shows that you donated page after page of text to SHIELDS in the late 1990s, and pretty much nothing after that. On the other hand, you *have* donated several articles and texts to FAIR. I think that it strains credulity to claim that no "separation," "lessening of donations," "caesura of collaborations"---or however you want to put it---occurred.

Really, Dan---you so often try to portray yourself as this fair, even-keeled guy, and so it kind of astonishes me that you'd really try and deny this. Come on, now: you obviously decided, for some reason, that you no longer had much of an interest in helping SHIELDS. I think that you should be able to admit that, at the very least. You could maybe say that you don't want to explain *why*, since you don't want to hurt Barker's feelings, etc. But it really seems very odd that you'd try to deny that your SHIELDS contributions have tapered off noticeably---drastically, even.