From My Informant: DCP & Schryver Ordered to Stand Down

[_Doctor Scratch]

Please read the underlined portions again. You indicated that they "had a meeting" specifically about FAIR, and that elder Oaks was "forced" to deliver the "bad news." So, your "informant's" intel was absolutely not correct, unless you can say the same thing about my meeting with elder Oaks (we shook hands at a stake conference, after all.)

That's not really an accurate re-statement of what I said (or what I was told).

Isn't it? It appears that we may have a reading comprehension issue here. Let me put it in a convenient side-by-side table for you:



What I represented was exactly what you said. It is undeniable.

No, Simon. Do you know what "scare quotes" indicate in a piece of writing? Furthermore, how do you know that Gordon was telling the truth? He admitted, after all, that he and Oaks met some three times during Oaks's visit. How do you know that the "keep up the good work" did *not* refer to FAIR?

Well, I guess I'd say that "care" is relative. Certainly, DCP and Gordon himself cared enough to comment on it. Scott Lloyd and LoaP cared. Scott, in particular, was quite savage in his attacks on Beastie. And I suppose I'll go ahead and point out that *you* seem to care insofar as you're here, kicking up a royal stink over this.

We all care (and I use the term loosely) because we do not like to see you misrepresenting what actually happened by utilizing TMZ tactics and putting a dramatic spin on a simple handshake and "good job" at a stake conference (something I, too have received).

I'm not "misrepresenting" anything. I was told that Oaks "met" with Gordon, and the Oaks was sent on a mission to order FAIR to tone down their aggressive tactics. I haven't seen any evidence whatsoever to indicate that didn't happen.

Does it bother you that the General Authorities might disapprove of FAIR, and of Mopologetics in general?

I would not be surprised FAIR did not even register as a blip on the Brethrens' radar. Why should it? FAIR is not an official organization of the Church.

Well, we know that the Church monitors close to 1,500 "anti-Mormon" websites. Plus, the existence of the SCMC indicates that the Brethren care about all kinds of seemingly irrelevant things.

No, I know for a fact. I was told this by someone who was "deeply embedded" with FAIR for quite some time.

Kevin Graham doesn't count. He's too jaded and cynical to see straight. Your "intel" is wrong, because I know for a fact that it is.

Did I say that it was Kevin Graham who told me? And if you know for a fact, feel free to supply the falsifying evidence.

Why would Elder Oaks deliver that kind of information to you? Are you the President of FAIR? Do you sit on the Board?

You are making a false assumption here that Elder Oaks actually knows what FAIR is, or what they do. Can you demonstrate that he does? Scott Gordon probably has had many priesthood callings in his stake, and Elder Oaks said "Keep up the good work" as he would to a deacon, or as he did to me all those years ago.

You're saying "probably," Simon. Meaning that you don't know for certain. Odds are, though, that Oaks is well aware of the existence of FAIR. If Royal Skousen and DCP are participants in the organizations' activities, the likelihood is that the Brethren are aware of the organization.

Why do you say that? Is it really that far out of the realm of possibility that the Brethren would disapprove of the apologists' vicious tactics?

The only viscousness I have seen is that which is intended to match that of the critics. Critics set the tone, Scratch. They always have. Go over to the Conference Center during General Conference if you don't understand this concept.

That doesn't really answer my question. What you're suggesting here is that the Brethren approve of retaliation and revenge tactics. Well, if this is alienating members and causing apostasy, do you think that the Brethren would continue to approve?

That's the thing: the apologists haven't been "silent." DCP practically erupted, launching thread after thread and post after post in the wake of the MI budget cuts allegations. It's just that he offered up no substantive counter-evidence.

I would defend my employer too, and I believe I have. DCP and Gordon, according to you, have been silent on the substantive counter-evidence because your theories are so insane.

That's not what I said at all.

I think it's highly likely that some of the Brethren disapprove of FAIR/FARMS.

If the Brethern disapproved of the Maxwell Institute, it would be shut down. I doubt they know what FAIR is.

That's not necessarily true. Sometimes misguided behavior on the part of the Brethren is overlooked due to the fact that various apostles disagree with one another.

In fact, I have to ask: Why is this scenario "completely cuckoo" in comparison to, say, a claim about being visited by an angel named Moroni?

When you start a worldwide religion with your cuckoo theories, get back to me, Doctor "Paper Mormon" Scratch.

You mean if I'm able to convince 13 million people that Mormon apologists are up to some kind of sneakiness, then the intel will suddenly become valid? Is that really your argument here, Simon? Argumentum ad populum? Look: if the intel is correct, then it's correct. It doesn't matter how many people are convinced. Once upon a time, lots of people believed that the Earth was flat, after all.

[qoute]

The *do* engage the claims. Hence Gordon and DCP's long thread. They just don't provide any sort of meaningful and substantive falsification.

And why should they? Must I provide meaningful falsification about upside-down people living at the core of the planet?[/quote]

I never said they had to respond. The fact of the matter is that they did. At length and obsessively in DCP's case.

Have I been "duped"? I kind of think not, given my general skepticism about the allegations.

If you are skeptical, why post the threads?

Because I think that the allegations are interesting and worthy of discussion.

Well, Simon, my source material is coming from deep within Church "bureaucracy." Since I know that you are an IT guy at Stamford Hospital, I know that you don't have the same kind of contact information that I have been getting. So my evidence Trump's yours.

How do you know I am not deep within the Church "bureaucracy?" Do you now, all-of-the-sudden believe I was being truthful when I disclosed my employer?

I guess you're right, Simon. I don't know for certain. Just like you don't know whether or not my "intel" is accurate.

[_Simon Belmont]

No, Simon. Do you know what "scare quotes" indicate in a piece of writing? Furthermore, how do you know that Gordon was telling the truth? He admitted, after all, that he and Oaks met some three times during Oaks's visit. How do you know that the "keep up the good work" did *not* refer to FAIR?

Did the table not help you at all? Need I make a simpler one? What I said and what you said matched, and anyone who reads this thread will, no doubt, understand that better than you have.

You can't simply apply argumentum ad ignorantiam to your half-baked theories to make them all true Scratch.

I'm not "misrepresenting" anything. I was told that Oaks "met" with Gordon, and the Oaks was sent on a mission to order FAIR to tone down their aggressive tactics. I haven't seen any evidence whatsoever to indicate that didn't happen.

There it is again: argumentum ad ignorantiam. For being such a smart fellow I am surprised that you overlook this oft used fallacy in much of your writing here.

Well, we know that the Church monitors close to 1,500 "anti-Mormon" websites. Plus, the existence of the SCMC indicates that the Brethren care about all kinds of seemingly irrelevant things.

Actually, you don't know that. You speculate that.

Did I say that it was Kevin Graham who told me? And if you know for a fact, feel free to supply the falsifying evidence.

You implied it. Strongly.

You're saying "probably," Simon. Meaning that you don't know for certain. Odds are, though, that Oaks is well aware of the existence of FAIR. If Royal Skousen and DCP are participants in the organizations' activities, the likelihood is that the Brethren are aware of the organization.

I am saying "probably" because you are misrepresenting what really happened -- turning it into a gossip column in the local paper just to garner attention for yourself. When no one cares enough to prove you wrong, you apply argumentum ad ignorantiam yet again.

That doesn't really answer my question. What you're suggesting here is that the Brethren approve of retaliation and revenge tactics. Well, if this is alienating members and causing apostasy, do you think that the Brethren would continue to approve?

The brethren have nothing to do with it. Critics always have and always will set the tone. They started it, apologists simply finish it.

That's the thing: the apologists haven't been "silent." DCP practically erupted, launching thread after thread and post after post in the wake of the MI budget cuts allegations. It's just that he offered up no substantive counter-evidence.

I would defend my employer too, and I believe I have. DCP and Gordon, according to you, have been silent on the substantive counter-evidence because your theories are so insane.

That's not what I said at all.

Now now, do I need to make another chart for you?

These are your own words. Read them again:

DCP practically erupted, launching thread after thread and post after post in the wake of the MI budget cuts allegations. It's just that he offered up no substantive counter-evidence.

Now, here is what I said:

I would defend my employer too, and I believe I have. DCP and Gordon, according to you, have been silent on the substantive counter-evidence because your theories are so insane.

What I have said is very close to what you have said (although, I admit, not exact wording).

You mean if I'm able to convince 13 million people that Mormon apologists are up to some kind of sneakiness, then the intel will suddenly become valid? Is that really your argument here, Simon? Argumentum ad populum? Look: if the intel is correct, then it's correct. It doesn't matter how many people are convinced. Once upon a time, lots of people believed that the Earth was flat, after all.

Since I know that can never happen -- yes, the intel will suddenly become valid. Good luck with that.

[qoute]
I never said they had to respond. The fact of the matter is that they did. At length and obsessively in DCP's case.[/quote]

So, because they didn't prove you wrong, you must be right?

There's that argumentum ad ignorantiam again!

Because I think that the allegations are interesting and worthy of discussion.

Well guess what? They aren't. They are blatant character assassinations and TMZ style gossip which is meant to garner you more attention than you deserve.

I guess you're right, Simon. I don't know for certain. Just like you don't know whether or not my "intel" is accurate.

So basically, this is your argument:

Your intel must be correct because the apologists have not proven you wrong.

argumentum ad ignorantiam, check-mate.

[_Kishkumen]

I would not be surprised FAIR did not even register as a blip on the Brethrens' radar. Why should it? FAIR is not an official organization of the Church.

You really ought to try, at the very least, to make your a "rebuttals" somewhat more plausible. Geez, Simon.

[_Paul Osborne]

I would not be surprised FAIR did not even register as a blip on the Brethrens' radar. Why should it? FAIR is not an official organization of the Church.

You really ought to try, at the very least, to make your a "rebuttals" somewhat more plausible. Geez, Simon.

Simon, tell me the brethren wouldn't be buzzing within a few hours after making some changes to the FAIR organization:

1. Appoint Brent Metcalfe as President
2. Appoint Polygamy Porter as Treasurer
3. Appoint Joseph as Senior Moderator of MAD
4. Ban DCP from MAD
5. Crown Paul Osborne as Church Egyptologist

Any questions?

Paul O

[_Doctor Scratch]

So basically, this is your argument:

Your intel must be correct because the apologists have not proven you wrong.

argumentum ad ignorantiam, check-mate.

No... That's not my argument at all. For all I know, my "intel" may be 100% false. That's why I've urged skepticism again and again. My point to you here on this thread is simply that I have no reason to believe that it's false in light of the lack of evidence supplied by the apologists. Argumentum ad ignorantium applies more to positivistic argumentation. But I'm not "asserting" anything. I'm just saying: This is what I was told, I don't know if it's true, and I haven't seen any evidence from the apologists which would convince me that the "intel" was false.

[_Tchild]

I cannot be a Mormon if I no longer believe it, and no longer attend. Neither can you.

Simon, does the LDS Church count people as members whether or not they believe in it and whether or not they attend?

Boy is Simon falling flat on his face. Found this over on the MA&D boards quoted by a poster there.

CHI (2006) said:

As used here, apostasy refers to members who: [...] 4. Formally join another church.

[...]

Total inactivity in the Church or attending another church does not constitute apostasy.

So, it looks like the COJCOLDS's "official doctrine" flatly contradicts Simon's apologetic version of Mormonism yet again.

[_Paul Osborne]

No... That's not my argument at all. For all I know, my "intel" may be 100% false. That's why I've urged skepticism again and again. My point to you here on this thread is simply that I have no reason to believe that it's false in light of the lack of evidence supplied by the apologists. Argumentum ad ignorantium applies more to positivistic argumentation. But I'm not "asserting" anything. I'm just saying: This is what I was told, I don't know if it's true, and I haven't seen any evidence from the apologists which would convince me that the "intel" was false.

You are indeed a patient man, Doctor Scratch. You spelled it out in simple terms. If Simon doesn't get it this time I'm going to begin to wonder if he even has a high school diploma.

Paul O

[_TAO]

Polygamy is what it is. It is insane to try to spin it in this strange way, TAO. We were all part of the same church and we know what was taught. We aren't making this stuff up, nor are we being fundamentalist. This is what the church has taught and teaches.

You know, I had never really gone and bothered to read part of the JoD until now. And what's funny is people are saying 'the JoD this' and 'the JoD that'. Actually, I don't find it too shabby. And now I know how much people quote mine in the JoD just to find something they can criticize - when they don't realize what the JoD is. Just reading it - and I came in with a negative perspective on it, I find that you guys fail to notice the reason of writing. In some ways, BY thinks like an Autistic - he sometimes thinks just for the sake of thinking, and exploring knowledge for fun.

Reading, I walk away with a greater respect of BY; he is a kinder man than people make him out to be. Just by reading the JoD I can tell such.

So yes, I do find it funny that you suggest that you aren't making stuff up. Reading what I read, it was sorta like material that I find didn't lead to the conclusions you led to. I've always known polygamy existed in heaven sometimes, but the negative implications you guys attach on like it's automatic are sure funny XD. It's also funny how people read into what he says without reading the context, that it is.

I am comfortable with you having a new take on these things. I think that is healthy and a good thing.

If anything, this has just confirmed what I had already thought - that people make out BY and polygamy to be more cruel than they really are.

But this spin is not what the church has taught. You cannot find a single example of it in church or in the manuals. Your version of Mormonism is fine, but so is the REAL church.

I don't need any church manuals... like BY my mind tends to drift to places, and comes to many of the same conclusions his do.

And there's a good reason they aren't in church manuals too XD. Because it is so much more educating to learn it yourself through the spirit.

To tell us the things we were taught were wrong or fundamentalist or non existent is really 'douchy'. Don't do it. It is rude and disrespectful and lately has been bothering me.

I am telling you that the negative perspective you put on it is non-existent. I don't take on other people's attitude just because they are majority thought. I think about them first, and I confirm with the spirit as well.

Dr. C is correct in what he is saying. I am sorry but that is the way it is. Be nice, TAO.

*shrugs* the thing which was most wrong in the first place (implication) is still incorrect. So I stand with what I say.

[_RockSlider]

You know, I had never really gone and bothered to read part of the JoD until now. And what's funny is people are saying 'the JoD this' and 'the JoD that'. Actually, I don't find it too shabby. And now I know how much people quote mine in the JoD just to find something they can criticize - when they don't realize what the JoD is. Just reading it - and I came in with a negative perspective on it, I find that you guys fail to notice the reason of writing. In some ways, BY thinks like an Autistic - he sometimes thinks just for the sake of thinking, and exploring knowledge for fun.

Let's see, you just barely read a part of the JoD and now your an expert and "realize what the JoD is all about?

Roughly how old are you? How knowledgeable are you about Mormon Doctrine? Not having ever read anything from the JoD before implies that your understandings of Mormon Theology might be fairly limited. You BIC? If no and convert how long have you been a member? Have you been/do you go to the Temple? Married?

just trying to get a feel of how to weight your comments here.

[_Nomad]

I cannot be a Mormon if I no longer believe it, and no longer attend. Neither can you.

What about people who attend but don't believe? Are they Mormons?

Of course not. They're fifth columnists. The worst kind of apostate, by far.