My Work Here is Done

[_Darth J]

Keep in mind again, that this is just a bare warm up to years of posting activity. Or we could look at this thread:

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... 3079#p3079

Where we see:

Over on FAIR, Her Amun has begun a thread discussing the very high number of google searches for both "porn" and "Jesus" in Salt Lake City. To my mind, this dovetails perfectly with a number of LDS cultural beliefs, practices, and attitudes...

Get the drift? LDS theology/culture leads to indulgence in pornography (not avoidance of it).

I keep missing where that was asserted. It looks a whole lot more like Scratch taking issue with the excuses being made for Mormons indulging in pornography, and/or saying that the prevalence of online pornography in Utah is somehow irrelevant to Mormons.

That this is how you interpreted it says more about you than it does him.

[_Darth J]

Then of course, there are those terrible, terrible politically incorrect GAs:

...the Church has made a concerted effort to elevate the status of the President/Prophet ever since the administration of David O. McKay. There is a good passage in Quinn on this called, I think, "adoration of the LDS President." Second, a frequent criticism leveled against the GAs has to do with their typically advanced age. In other words, critics maintain that they are still living in the 1950s, etc., and are in effect well behind the times.

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... 5587#p5587

This is a statement of fact as to what critics say. Do you dispute whether this is a frequent criticism of the LDS Church?

[_Darth J]

Keep in mind here that Scratch has long been clear regarding his anti-Mormon intentions, and why he criticizes the Church in such an aggressive manner:

My reason is simple: I enjoy discussing these topics, and hope that in some small way, I can help to affect change in the LDS Church.

What Scratch has long desired to help bring about is the mass apostasy of the general membership and the reinventing of the Church as a kind of LDS version of a thoroughly secularized, politically correct liberal mainstream Protestant denomination. That entire project is only peripherally an attack on "mopologists" (some of whom are very liberal indeed), but upon the Church proper, the vast majority of its active members, and its culture (I also note that it was in this thread (and perhaps some others at the time) that Scratch introduces his fabrication of his claimed advanced degrees and claims to be a PhD, but that's another story).

But how could Scratch possibly bring about a mass apostasy of the general membership of the LDS Church, seeing as how he posts on an "obscure message board" that nobody care about?

Are you now saying that Mopologists defend LDS culture, too? Where could I find a FAIR article about the virtues of roadshows?

Scratch wants an escape hatch here by claiming his primary focus has always been on apologists, and not on the Church. The reality is that it would be difficult, looking through all the old posts which are extensively aimed at apologists and apologetics without running continually into criticisms of gospel doctrines, and, to the point, pretty much all of them. What would one expect, however, given that the entire point of LDS apologetics is to defend church doctrine and teachings from its critics. What, for just one example, does Scratch think of the doctrine of work for the dead, specifically baptism?

Translation: in Droopy's mind, LDS doctrine and LDS apologetics are inseparable.

Apologists for the practice usually justify it on the grounds that it is well-meaning. Nevertheless, it's not as if the people performing the ordinance are sending out announcements, letting relatives of the deceased know that these baps are taking place. There has been an element of sneakiness to the whole affair, in my opinion. And ironically, TBM apologists let loose with all sorts of outrage when they learn of Jewish researches heading into the archives in order to check up on whether the Church has held to its agreements not to baptize Holocaust victims. (One such researcher discovered, of all things, that Mickey Mouse had been baptized by proxy.)

The practice, you see, is sneaky, furtive, and sinister.

He is taking issue with the way that it is defended. "Apologists for the practice usually justify it on the grounds...."

[_Droopy]

Wow, Droopy. It looks like you put a lot of work into that post. Gee, if only you'd put a similar amount of effort into reading what I actually said:

You won't find very many instances of me actually attacking rank-and-file LDS, their faith, or things of that nature. My concentration has been on the Mopologists.

Darth J expanded this statement to include "the LDS Church per se," which applies a bit better to what you quoted above, though again I think you'll have a really difficult time demonstrating how those items really square with people's basic faith in the Church. (Seriously: how necessary is the SCMC to your faith in the gospel? How is it helping anything?)

I don't have the months it would require to put together a book length tome containing the countless attacks on the Church, its leaders, members, culture, social and political positions, and the specific apolgists you have singled out and hounded online for years on end with vitriolic, mendacious intensity, nor do I have any desire to do so.

The history is there, and you made it. Neither Johnnie or you can undo it, any more than Ed Decker can undo his decades of pathological lying (from which you have ripped a page or two, it would seem), or Kevin Graham's long history of frothing hostility and double talk regarding his own forays into the arena of ideas.

Its all of a piece, and all in the game.

[_Droopy]

Actually, Darth, I simply refuse to respond to your quasi-Socratic twaddle anymore. Its not really intended to get to the bottom of anything (as much courtroom gibberish is not so intended), intellectually speaking, nor is the frustration inherent in the parsing of your, what you apparently think are clever sophistries, of any particular interest.

[_Darth J]

Then. of course, there are all the Salt Lake conspiricies and star chambers:

I believe that the "boys in Salt Lake" are well aware of this, hence FARMS, FAIR, BKP's "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect," the Strengthening Church Members Committee, and so on. It seems that the Brethren want very much to control all aspects of LDS history, and I believe that if they had to ability to completely alter the historical records, they would---or else they would limit the material in such a way that it totally guaranteed an absence of apostasy.

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... 7659#p7659

Scratch, indeed, less the apologists who defend it, has a long laundry list of complaints and belly aches against the Church per se. Race, class, gender, and sexual orientation, the holy trinity plus one cherub in the modern postmodern/cultural Marxist pantheon of mortal sins are all well represented in his posting history. He gives a short list of his feminist complaints here:

Nevertheless, the Brethren have long taught that women are dependent upon men for exaltation in a way that doesn't cut both ways. (Think about who pulls whom through the veil.)

Really, the list of ways in which sexism is present in the Church goes on for quite a ways:
---polygamy
---No priesthood for women
---No passing the sacrament, or administering ordinances
---The Church's opposition to the ERA
---excommunication for praying to Heavenly Mother
---Sunday school lessons which seem aimed at cementing a "Madonna-Whore" mentality into girls, such as the "chewed-up gum" lesson
---No female equivalent of the Boy Scouts
---Draconian restrictions on girls' appearances (such as the two earrings thing)
---material limiting women's roles in the POTF
---the old restriction against women praying in Sac. Meeting

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... 7351#p7351

Any apologists present here? Me, Will, Wade, Pahoran, Bob, Hamblin, Gee, Rhodes, DCP, anyone? No. This is an ideological/personal attack on the Church's beliefs, theology, and practices. I thought Scratch didn't do that sort of thing?

Droopy, you need to decide if "anti-Mormon" means trying to destroy the LDS Church, or merely making statements of fact that are not faith-promoting. Your response---such as it is---suggests that you think the two are one and the same.

You are not refuting my point by conflating "anti-Mormon" with "not faith-promoting," since I do not accept that conflation.

What about Scratch's statement that the Church would prefer that only faith-promoting history be available to members and investigators is not accurate?

What about his observation regarding sexism is not accurate? Hint: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sexism

[_Darth J]

Actually, Darth, I simply refuse to respond to your quasi-Socratic twaddle anymore. Its not really intended to get to the bottom of anything (as much courtroom gibberish is not so intended), intellectually speaking, nor is the frustration inherent in the parsing of your, what you apparently think are clever sophistries, of any particular interest.

Is that what the guy on AM radio told you that it's like to be a lawyer?

[_Doctor Scratch]

I don't have the months it would require to put together a book length tome containing the countless attacks on the Church, its leaders, members, culture, social and political positions, and the specific apolgists you have singled out and hounded online for years on end with vitriolic, mendacious intensity, nor do I have any desire to do so.

No one's asking for a "tome," Droopy, nor is there any need for you to track down my criticism of "apolgists," since I've said already that I've focused my commentary on Mopologetics. And sure: I've criticized aspects of LDS culture and leadership from time to time, but again: to what extent do these things constitute the full scope/vital essence of Mormon faith? I asked you above whether or not you view the SCMC (and everything it represents) as being in any way necessary for your faith, and you ignored the question.

In general, Droopy, my view is that, if people are happy in the Church, and if they find it rewarding and useful, then hey: more power to them. As for you, your membership in the Church just seems to make you angry and frustrated, and I personally don't understand why you're a believer. It seems to have just made you miserable.

[_Darth J]

It's odd that Droopy really like to debate things right up to the point where his assertions are not taken at face value. But let's finish with his "riposte" to me:

When Scratch isn't insinuating, or clearly asserting that a high percentage of LDS men are porn addicts,

See: Begging the Question

he's saying things such as:

In other words, "Shut up ladies, and get back to work." Much the same advice was doled out to complaining Blacks prior to the lifting of the ban. Thus, in a likewise manner, more fomenting on the part of women would likely lead to new revelation, much like "stirring the pot," lawsuits, threat of losing tax-exempt status, etc. led to (or at the very least contributed to) the 1978 revelation.

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... 8450#p8450

I'm sorry, but I'm going to need that clarification as to whether "anti-Mormon" just means "claims of fact that are not faith-promoting."

As there is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that Scratch has never actually been LDS, the thrust and intent of his criticisms is clear: he doesn't believe in or like the vast majority of what it teaches, and wants to see that changed to suit his own ideological predilections. This has nothing to do with apologetics, which is only his primary foil in the arena of debate, but with the Church qua the Church.

As opposed to, say, insisting---contrary to explicit statements officially released by the Church---that the only "real" Mormons are the ones who subscribe to your own political views.

Back to Scratch's and most apostate leftist's favorite subject, sex,

That's right, Droopy. Anyone who takes issue with the truth claims of the LDS Church is a communist.

we have Scratch attacking the Church for years across a broad swath of politically correct iconic themes. All the way back in 2006, we have:

Mormonism provides a whole panoply of options when it comes to rationalizing away unpleasant or embarrassing aspects of history and doctrine. It relates to the whole "no systematic theology" thing from the ironically named FAIRboard. One can view the GA statements as "not prophetic" and merely coming from man; one can say that the "sex" was "celestial" or merely "symbolic"; one can say that Mary was transfigured, etc. There is a whole range of ways to deal with it. The best one, in my opinion, is to just accept that this is the teaching, and that Heavenly Father and Mary really did go at it. Sex has long been a crucial (and radical, from an orthodox Christianity perspective) part of LDS theology, so why not celebrate that? The present Brethren mentality is too Victorian, and marked a wrong turn in LDS leadership, in my opinion, culminating in SWK's silly condemnations of, among other things, oral sex.

Here we have a huge cornucopia of obscure, unestablished, unofficial doctrine slung into a hopper, traditional anti-Mormon style, and allowed to spew out again through centrifugal force onto the walls. Scratch, a non-member, leftist anti-Mormon polemicist, presumes to pronounce on the nature of LDS leadership, and on obscure, isolated theological speculations (of the kind I have traditionally found are so over his head in general depth that he need water wings just to get past the first few syllables) as if he really understood the implications of what he was saying, and as if there were no specific apolgetics movement at all. He's preaching to a choir here on the awful thing that is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints and its teachings, not attacking his favorite whipping boys like Danial Peterson.

I am very impressed to see you confirming Scratch's point in the course of disputing it. By the way, is it now "anti-Mormon" to make any comment at all about the viewpoints of LDS leadership, beyond "yea, verily"?

But now that you mention that he is a leftist, I wonder if it would be too much trouble to ask where he has posted about his political views?

Further, Scratch's paranoia and hostility toward Church doctrines could hardly ever be severed from his paranoia and hostility toward the Internet apologetics movement at its alleged control/manipulation by the Brethren:

You know, this is all very troubling indeed. In fact, I would be willing to bet that the FP or SCMC was in some way involved with FAIR's severing its relationship with the old MB. Of course, DCP, juliann, "Scottie Dog" Gordon, and all the rest of the crew will never, ever admit to it, but I would not be surprised if the Powers that Be in Salt Lake City are going to start applying pressure throughout cyberspace.

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... 8617#p8617

Scratch' participation in this early thread should disabuse anyone of Scratch's claim that the only target of his polemical attacks has been apologetics. This thread is a fundamental criticism of the Church across the entire spectrum of its divine truth claims and orgins, claims with which Scratch is in fundamental agreement and spars with Wade over at length.

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... &sk=t&sd=a

Here, Scratch takes the standard Signature Books/September Six/EV critic narrative of the wholesale illegitimacy of the Church and runs with it through his entire participation in the thread. This therad is only one of countless threads like it, making or reiterating similar themes and points, from that time to the present. Mining them would take vast amounts of time, which I do not have to make what should already be (and are) obvious points.

Let me help you, Droopy. You still are not refuting my point, because I do not concede that "anti-Mormon" means "I think the LDS Church is false, and here's why."

How is Scratch actively evangelizing against the LDS Church? Or how is anyone on this board, for that matter? I spent two years knocking on people's doors and stopping strangers on the street to try to convert them to the LDS Church. To your knowledge, how many people have I gone out and tried to de-convert?

Looking at and/or participating on this message board is voluntary. You do not seem to be aware of that, so I am just point it out to you.

[_Droopy]

No one's asking for a "tome,"

But that's what it would end being. Johnnie is already frantically spinning and reinterpreting your own words in an attempt to raise the Titanic. Alas, its on the bottom for the duration.

Droopy, nor is there any need for you to track down my criticism of "apolgists," since I've said already that I've focused my commentary on Mopologetics.

Which is, of course, your own idiosyncratic term for "apologetics" just as "mopolgist" is a code term for "apologists."

And sure: I've criticized aspects of LDS culture and leadership from time to time, but again: to what extent do these things constitute the full scope/vital essence of Mormon faith?

Which is to say, to what extent to the central, defining doctrines, teachings, and practices of the Mormon faith constitute the full scope/vital essense of the Mormon faith? Can you answer that, Scratch?

I asked you above whether or not you view the SCMC (and everything it represents) as being in any way necessary for your faith, and you ignored the question.

As its intent, as with much of your writing, is a thoroughgoing delegitimization of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles - the highest priesthood leadership in the Church and central to its structure and mission - its a core issue.

In general, Droopy, my view is that, if people are happy in the Church, and if they find it rewarding and useful, then hey: more power to them.

That's a new twist, Scratch, as I had never noticed that before.

As for you, your membership in the Church just seems to make you angry and frustrated, and I personally don't understand why you're a believer. It seems to have just made you miserable.

My membership in the Church makes me angry and frustrated?

Fascinating, just fascinating.