Rich's Website

[_Simon Belmont]

I missed a 0. It's 20%.

So anyway, is Rich ready to man up to his lies?

Because this thread is entitled “Rich’s Website” it would be nice to deal with relevant issues regarding the site.

Rich, your links section IS ON YOUR WEBSITE.

[_Simon Belmont]

Simon, are you pleased with how this thread that you started has worked out...?

So far, so good.

Rich changed his site slightly.

That's a step in the right direction.

[_rich kelsey]

... Your other post calling him an anti-mormon(again used as a meaningless attack word) and liar is false. He posted before you did that he recently added some links and yet you still called him a liar. You are dfefinitely not making the church look very good, and you still are avioding what I and others have asked you to do, but I never had much hope that you would ever back up your accusations. I would also add that Rich acts much more like a Christain then you have in this thread. You should maybe learn something from him.

Thanks Themis.

For those interested in what’s next for my website:

• I will continue to add links in the link’s pages in all sections.
• I eventually plan on separating the links by creating individual pages for the various religions: Christian, Mormon, Seventh Day Adventist, Jehovah’s Witness.

If anyone has a link that they feel may make the site more informative please let me know and I will seriously consider it.

If anyone has an article they would like to see included that will be considered as well.

Because of possible copyright issues, today I replaced a picture on the opening page of Those Mysterious Golden Plates with one of my own.

Also, if anyone has a comment / review for one of the articles or any advice I am interested. I am thinking I may desire to screen comments which I include in the comments section from this point on.

I would like the comment to discuss the article from someone who has actually read the work.

Other than basic updates to the site I am in my off writing season for the next 90 days. My doctor told me to take some time off and enjoy the summer.

[_Simon Belmont]

Rich, if you added FAIRlds.org and maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu I would be impressed.

But I won't hold my breath.

Beside the links on your site, your main quotation says this:

Please send those in need links to articles on this site; together we can steer people away from false hopes, shattered dreams, and wasted lives.

Rich Kelsey

I take serious issue with calling other religions that don't happen to be your particular brand of Christianity "false hopes, shattered dreams, and wasted lives." What kind of a person says those things?

[_rich kelsey]

An Ex-Mormon ministry used a few articles from my site for today’s read. Here is their piece: 1826 Arrest of Joseph Smith

http://lifeafterministry.wordpress.com/ ... lemmas-22/

I returned the favor and added a link to their site’s home page.

http://lifeafterministry.wordpress.com/

Life After Ministries has some very informative articles. I know some here will get upset reading them; others may be able to relate.

[_Themis]

I take serious issue with calling other religions that don't happen to be your particular brand of Christianity "false hopes, shattered dreams, and wasted lives." What kind of a person says those things?

Usually one who believes them, and as a result will want to help those people, thus why he has a site on it. Many good members would think and feel the same about many religions. I would add that I would not say wasted lives, but false hopes is what you believe about many other religions. Shattered dreams is a personal thing each person would have to decide for themselves.

I see after so many pages you will continue to aviod backing up any of your assertions. Couldn't Man up. Not really a surprise SB.

[_Simon Belmont]

Usually one who believes them, and as a result will want to help those people, thus why he has a site on it.

Help people from what?

Many good members would think and feel the same about many religions. I would add that I would not say wasted lives, but false hopes is what you believe about many other religions.

Actually, it is not. Not at all.

Shattered dreams is a personal thing each person would have to decide for themselves.

Perhaps, but on Rich's site, he is deciding it for everyone.

I see after so many pages you will continue to aviod backing up any of your assertions. Couldn't Man up. Not really a surprise SB.

My assertion was that Rich's website is clearly anti-Mormon. I have demonstrated it beyond any reasonable doubt by displaying the site's mission to save people from "shattered dreams and wasted lives" -- Rich's (anti) view of Mormonism. I further demonstrated it by showing the audience that Rich links to only anti-Mormon sites (save one) -- at which point Rich quickly posted a couple of links to LDS.org and BYU in an attempt to gain some credibility. Rich then demonstrated his anti-Mormon agenda by boasting that another anti-Mormon "ministry" linked to his poorly written articles.

I've more than made my case, Themis. I don't have to comb through his filth to see it for what it is.

[_Simon Belmont]

An Ex-Mormon ministry used a few articles from my site for today’s read. Here is their piece: 1826 Arrest of Joseph Smith

http://lifeafterministry.wordpress.com/ ... lemmas-22/

I returned the favor and added a link to their site’s home page.

http://lifeafterministry.wordpress.com/

Life After Ministries has some very informative articles. I know some here will get upset reading them; others may be able to relate.

Yes, Rich... we know.

You anti-Mormons really stick together.

[_Themis]

Help people from what?

Well for him I guess that would be the three things he lists. Are you really this stupid, or fo you just like playing stupid?

Actually, it is not. Not at all.

Many do. I know this from plenty of expereince. You just miss that Rich like many members do not hate others becuase they think their beliefs represent false hopes.

Perhaps, but on Rich's site, he is deciding it for everyone.

No he is not. He is expressing an opinion. One you don't agree with, and I don't agree with everything he says. So what. You don'YouTube have to read what he says, not that I think you have. You have yet to show what is inaccurate, but then you are only interested in attacking him.

My assertion was that Rich's website is clearly anti-Mormon. I have demonstrated it beyond any reasonable doubt by displaying the site's mission to save people from "shattered dreams and wasted lives" -- Rich's (anti) view of Mormonism.

This was not the only assertion you made about his site, and your defintion of anti-mormon is probably not shared by most, and is basically meaningless. You still won't back up those assertions. Your definition of anti-mormon is just for attacking others.

I further demonstrated it by showing the audience that Rich links to only anti-Mormon sites (save one) -- at which point Rich quickly posted a couple of links to LDS.org and BYU in an attempt to gain some credibility. Rich then demonstrated his anti-Mormon agenda by boasting that another anti-Mormon "ministry" linked to his poorly written articles.

Many of us don't agree with your definition of anti-mormon.

I've more than made my case, Themis. I don't have to comb through his filth to see it for what it is.

Now we get to the little truth you are willing to say. You haven't even looked at his site to find what is inaccurate, and only wanted to make assertions you believe without backing any of it up. I find this a little dishonest.

[_Jersey Girl]

Belmont,

With all due respect, it is clear to me that you aren't well familiar with Criddle's work. The links that you extracted from Rich's website are not wordprint studies.

Criddle has conducted NO wordprint studies.

Are you aware of that?

You're right. I'm not familiar with Criddle's work -- only that he is a critic of my faith.

That was my whole point.

How many links does Rich provide that aren't hostile toward my faith?

Count them -- one (the Joseph Smith Papers).

Back on this little horse I was ridin'.

Belmont, on this thread you referred to Criddle's word print studies and referred to Criddle himself as an "anti-Mormon". When I pointed out to you that the links you challenge as "Criddle's word print studies" are actually two companion essays, one of which is still under construction on UD's website, you totally ignore that information.

You seem to be content to brand anyone who is a critic of your church as an anti-Mormon and yet, you are hesitant to plaster the same label on me.

Now why is that?

You are ill informed about Criddle. You are simply regurgitating what others have stated and grasping at links to essays which you refer to as word print studies because they have his name on them as author.

Let me help you out here.

Matt Jockers and Daniela Witten conducted the word print studies for Jockers, et al (2008). Criddle supplied the historical background matter. This study was published in a peer reviewed journal (Literary and Linguistic Computing) as:

"Reassessing Authorship of the Book of Mormon
Using Delta and Nearest Shrunken Centroid
Classification."

Another word print study was conducted by Matt Jockers, using the personal writings of Joseph Smith.

Tell me why you think that whenever the paper is discussed on these boards that Jockers and Witten who actually conducted the word print studies are almost never mentioned?

If you object to word print studies being conducted to challenge or determine Book of Mormon authorship, why aren't you openly critical of Jockers and Witten?

Let me tell you why. It's because you don't know what you're talking about and because this post is likely the first time you've come across their names and yet they conducted the very word print study that you condemn Criddle for conducting when he did no such thing.

On this thread, you are quick to condemn Rich's website because you believe it contains "lies" about your church.

1. Please tell me why you are content to forward lies or half truths regarding Criddle's role in the authorship studies and attack the man's character and if you are so strongly opposed to the authorship studies, why you aren't ragging on Jockers and Witten?

2. Tell me too, Belmont, why you dismiss out of hand, Criddle's statement of his position regarding the label "anti-Mormon"?

3. Don't you think his statement was sincere? If not, why not?

4. Tell me too, Belmont, if you are so strongly opposed to the authorship studies, why you aren't informing yourself of the topic matter and hacking away at the thread in the CF?