Apostasy's A Bummer

[_Droopy]

I'll highlight the important words for you.

Don't bother, just pull the lever that controls the slot machine in your head and look for the cherries.

Again, I never characterized all apostates as hateful, vile, or driven by venal motives. I think Kevin is because I have long experience with him and that's the way he has presented himself and treated others for a number of years, but that in his case, not all. There are what I would call established "patterns of apostasy," in the church, and long well known. For a general articulation of them, I would point you to the parable of the sower.

[Guest]

I'm alienated by whom??

Not by whom, but from what.

If any of this were true, would I be the one who was invited to participate on the most popular pro-Mormon forum, the same one that threw you out?

My major criticism of the MDD board (and I can tell you that I'm hardly alone in this) is that it has ceased, to a substantial degree, to be an apologetic discussion forum and has become deeply Sunstoneized, to the point that someone like you could be invited there and allowed to break board rules with impunity (per David Bokovoy). The reason is that there are people in the leadership at FAIR who actually agree with some of your views, and are hostile to those of traditional defenders of the Book of Abraham.

They also like your politics, and despise mine.

Would I be contacted by respected LDS scholars, out of the blue (the same ones who think you're an embarrassment to Mormonism)?

The very fact that this individual can come here and lie in public with a vengeance about the the manner in which he has presented himself in public and behaved in public for many years now is indicative of exactly the deep psychopathology that drives this individual and animates the style and manner in which he argues his cases (which, for the most part, is composed, not of argument, but of ad hominem smarm and breast beating regarding his own intellectual eminence and self importance).

Who has lied, and about what? All you do is blather one stupid assertion after another, claiming you could document them if you wanted to.

You have lied that you are not driven by hate and bigotry, which, by the fruits we know you by, is utterly preposterous.

Your inability to achieve basic comprehension is hardly evidence that I've lied. No one on this forum interpreted my comments the way you chose to interpret them, and that's probably because unlike you, Runtu is an educated guy who has a stranglehold on the English language.

This was about you, not Don Bradley.

Now that your little theory about me hyperventilating in retreat over something I never said, has been completely shot out of the water, you're back to the usual spin move. You know, wash, rinse, repeat. That's par for the course.

And so, what is Don's present perspective on the Book of Abraham?

[_beastie]

Apostasy is actually rewarding. Droopy knows it, and it eats him alive.

[_Kevin Graham]

I knew you'd run away with your proverbial tail between your proverbial legs with that question, Kevin. Which is why I asked it. You know what Hauglid thinks about this issue, and I'm sure you know what Don thinks. Its been your bread and butter for years, and I highly doubt it would not have come up, and extensively, in your continuing relationship with him. You've long attacked me, Wade, and others with your name dropping of "LDS scholars" who come to sit at your feet to receive morsels of wisdom. OK, as you are an enemy of the Church, and don't believe or accept virtually any of its core truth claims, we must wonder why "LDS" scholars would be making any common cause with you at all. Its a fair question. Tell us then,l who these LDS Scholars are, and on what points important to apologetic they agree with you and your viewpoints.

ROFL! Does your idiocy know no limits? So now your argument is that my relationship with these folks is strictly based on their denial of the Book of Abraham? Are you really this dumb? I told you that I do not know what Don's position is on this issue, before and after you kept asking about it, and after you're forced to ackolwedge my response (after you claimed I "fled the battlefield") your only response is to accuse me of lying about it because you cannot handle refutation. I must be lying, because according to you I would never befriend Don unless he shared such beliefs?

Is this really how you hope to squirm your way out of the fact that you just made a complete arse of yourself, by trumping that dumb theory with an even dumber one?

They're not personal, or you wouldn't have been name dropping and implying scholarly support for your own views from within the apologetic community for the last couple of years and basking in the glow of all the alleged LDS scholars who think defending the Church's position on the Book of Abraham is a lost cause.

I've never once used any of these men to imply "support" for my views on the Book of Abraham. Right now you're just flat out lying. Your problem is that you're too stupid to achieve basic comprehension. I brought up Don's name today because he has a unique insight, as an LDS believer, into the apostay process which so maany of us have experienced. You're the one who tried to turn this into a Book of Abraham issue.

The reason you won't ask Don about these things is because you know he will tell you the same thing I just said, and then you'll be forced to accuse both of us of lying. It is teh only world you know how to live in. You're never wrong, and we're all a bunch of turn-coat leftists out to trick you. Life must really suck in Kershaw.

Brian Hauglid sent me an email shortly after I presented a thorough refutation of Schryver at MADD. I didn't solicit his input, and hadn't had any contact with him in over a year. He took it upon himself to contact me and his opening paragraph was,

"I've been reading your "Cipher" thread on the MD&D board. Your OP is well done. I'm impressed with (and commend you for) your staid posting, which shows a real talent at intelligent, academic discussion. In fact, I think you present very well-reasoned, cogent argumentation on the "Cipher" thread that deserves a well-reasoned and cogent response. So far I have not seen LDS apologists (in the know) do this."

This is one of many reasons why I take a grain of salt with every idiotic caricature you present of me. Why should I care what some uneducated hick from the town of Kershaw thinks about me, when I am occasionally complimented by established scholars. Bokovoy was another who complimented me and he did so openly on the MAD forum, much to the chagrin of many apologists.

Anyway, Brian closed his email with this comment:

"I just want you to know that I do not agree with the dogmatic, condescending approach some LDS apologists take to alternative points of view on the KEP. In my view it is amateurish, sophomoric, and demeaning to the conversation. Please know that I will work hard to put together a useful critical edition of these manuscripts, which I hope all can appreciate (think Joseph Smith Papers type book), and that will help the conversation move along in a worthy manner."

To your mind, Hauglid must be an apostate who doesn't accept the Book of Abraham, simply because he is trying to stretch out an olive branch to those who have lost faith in it. He respects the critical arguments and doesn't believe it is useful to reject everything just because a critic presents it. He is a true scholar.

You see Loran, not everyone shares your "war" mentality, of "us against them." You and Schryver stink of this fear and loathing. Everything to you is all about "whose side are you on and why are you being nice to those minions of Satan"?

Folks like Hauglid and Bokovoy have profound disagreements with your approach. But it ends there. There is no reason to suspect apostasy from either of them. They just happen to find value in learning from the critics who have some insight into the things they are studying. Why is it so difficult to accept that?

[_Droopy]

Apostasy is actually rewarding. Droopy knows it, and it eats him alive.

Yes, Beastly, that's right. I don't actually believe any of the things I say, or believe in the Church I defend. I'm just doing all of this because of poor potty training.

[_Kevin Graham]

Not by whom, but from what.

Take your pick and answer the question. The fact is I've been alientaed by no one and nothing. This is your wishful thinking getting the better of you again. You want so desperately to believe that I'm despised among Mormons as much as you are, but I highly doubt that is the case.

My major criticism of the MDD board (and I can tell you that I'm hardly alone in this) is that it has ceased, to a substantial degree, to be an apologetic discussion forum and has become deeply Sunstoneized, to the point that someone like you could be invited there and allowed to break board rules with impunity (per David Bokovoy). The reason is that there are people in the leadership at FAIR who actually agree with some of your views, and are hostile to those of traditional defenders of the Book of Abraham.

They also like your politics, and despise mine.

Presenting more conspiracy theory isn't doing yourself any favors. There is no evidence of any of this, only in your deluded mind. You just refuse to accept the idea that they reject you because you're exactly the kind of despicable character you try to project onto me. You don't debate, you lecture, judge, and insult. That's you're MO and they figured it out. I've discussed no politics on that forum that was allowed to stand, and I have been thread-banned on a number of occasions just this past month, when no rules were broken. Saying I receive special treatment there is just idiotic. The fact that they prefer me over you doesn't mean they prefer me over the Church. It just means you're all that more insufferable than I am. Accept it and get over it.

You have lied that you are not driven by hate and bigotry, which, by the fruits we know you by, is utterly preposterous.

Just so we're clear, THIS is your "evidence" that I have lied. Because I reject your claim that I am driven by hate and bigotry. Thank you. You may now return to your corner and resume your modeling of the dunce cap.

And so, what is Don's present perspective on the Book of Abraham?

I already told you. I have no idea. I know he is a true believer so i suspect he finds some spiritual value in the Book of Abraham, but I've never discussed it with him. The closest thing we ever talked about on the subject was regarding his Kinderhook Presentation. Today was the first time I had any vocal correspondence with Don and the subject about his view on the Book of Abraham never came up. We hardly talked about the Book of Abraham at all today. There are three other witnesses who were there and they'll tell you the same thing, but to your mind, we must all be lying. Because, you can't be wrong about anything.

[_Kevin Graham]

It should be pointed out that rejecting Schryver's Cipher theory shouldn't be considered synonymous with rejecting the Book of Abraham. Droopy doesn't have the brain power to process such a concept. He thinks that if one apologist sides with a critic in rejecting another apologist's argument, then that means he is sharing that critic's overall take on the Book of Abraham.

You just can't make this stuff up folks.

The fact is Schryver was riding on the coat tails of Hauglid for two years, using him as his authority. And then once Hauglid explained to him that he didn't agree with one of Schryver's pet theories (Cipher), Schryver took his ball home in a huff and hasn't contacted Hauglid since. So with no authority to fall back on, Schryver was forced to move and and try to trick others at BYU to swallow his BS theories about a cipher. He claims he has Skousen sold hook line and sinker, but I refuse to believe it until Skousen comes out in publication endorsing it.

[Guest]

ROFL!

Inauspicious beginning...

Does your idiocy know no limits?

Kevin's not driven by hate, bigotry, or self justification. No, how could anyone have ever gotten that impression?

So now your argument is that my relationship with these folks is strictly based on their denial of the Book of Abraham?

I don't believe I said that. I mentioned above, I beleive, you, David, Hauglid, and Don all share similar political beliefs.

Are you really this dumb?

I feel warm fuzzies wrapping themselves around me even as I type...

I told you that I do not know what Don's position is on this issue,

I'm sure you don't, Kevin. Yes, I'm sure you don't.

before and after you kept asking about it, and after you're forced to ackolwedge my response (after you claimed I "fled the battlefield") your only response is to accuse me of lying about it because you cannot handle refutation. I must be lying, because according to you I would never befriend Don unless he shared such beliefs?

Interesting how sensitive you are about being called a liar, especially in view of the fact that there is hardly a FARMS scholars till breathing who you have not accused of lying, deception, and intellectual fraud on countless occasions.

Is this really how you hope to squirm your way out of the fact that you just made a complete arse of yourself, by trumping that dumb theory with an even dumber one?

I had no theory. You seemed to imply that Don was one of a group of people who felt that there reasons for leaving the church were justified. While I don't ever think such is justified, I do think people can be sincere about it. What I don't accept is that people, although sincere, are wholly pure in their motives. One leaves the church - always - because one decides, at some level, the he/she cannot live or accept its standards and teachings. The cost of discipleship appears too high. One comes into, or back into the Church, when the costs recede and the blessings become the important aspect to consider - no matter what one has to sacrifice in the process.

I've never once used any of these men to imply "support" for my views on the Book of Abraham.
Right now you're just flat out lying.

No, Pinocchio you've used Hauglid's name with me more than once as a foil against Will. You also made clear to me, long ago, and he shares similar political views with you.

Your problem is that you're too stupid to achieve basic comprehension.

Oh, is that the problem...

The reason you won't ask Don about these things is because you know he will tell you the same thing I just said, and then you'll be forced to accuse both of us of lying.

He'll tell me he doesn't know what his position on the Book of Abraham is? I see...

we're all a bunch of turn-coat leftists out to trick you. Life must really suck in Kershaw.

Well, you not tricking me, in any case.

Brian Hauglid sent me an email shortly after I presented a thorough refutation of Schryver at MADD. I didn't solicit his input, and hadn't had any contact with him in over a year. He took it upon himself to contact me and his opening paragraph was,

"I've been reading your "Cipher" thread on the MD&D board. Your OP is well done. I'm impressed with (and commend you for) your staid posting, which shows a real talent at intelligent, academic discussion. In fact, I think you present very well-reasoned, cogent argumentation on the "Cipher" thread that deserves a well-reasoned and cogent response. So far I have not seen LDS apologists (in the know) do this."

So, how then would you characterize Hauglid's overall view of the Book of Abraham? Is he only against Will's theory, or is he against what Will is trying to prove - that the KEP has nothing to do with the origin of the Book of Abraham and the Book of Abraham is an authentic ancient document?

This is one of many reasons why I take a grain of salt with every idiotic caricature you present of me. Why should I care what some uneducated hick from the town of Kershaw thinks about me,

Actually, I have four years of college and university at this juncture, well over 25 years as an auto-didact who has been dedicated (when not working myself to the bone in the hot sun dong nice things to people's yards) of intense and consistent study, reflection, and writing on a number of subjects I consider important, a gigantic humanities/social science library that I will be hard pressed to get through before the bucket gets kicked, and I was born and raised in Washington state and San Diego, California.

when I am occasionally complimented by established scholars. Bokovoy was another who complimented me and he did so openly on the MAD forum, much to the chagrin of many apologists.

Yes, because, among other odd beliefs for a Latter day Saint, he also leans toward believing, that the Book of Abraham is a product of Joseph Smith's imagination, just as you do, but with perhaps some caveats relative to the "inspired fiction" angle needed to preserve his own legitimacy as a faithful member holding down the gospel fort. I know this through "the grapevine," not from you, in any case.

Anyway, Brian closed his email with this comment:

"I just want you to know that I do not agree with the dogmatic, condescending approach some LDS apologists take to alternative points of view on the KEP. In my view it is amateurish, sophomoric, and demeaning to the conversation. Please know that I will work hard to put together a useful critical edition of these manuscripts, which I hope all can appreciate (think Joseph Smith Papers type book), and that will help the conversation move along in a worthy manner."

The nebulousness of this is of little use in determining Bokovoy's actual perception of the KEP matter. What is he actually trying to say?

To your mind, Hauglid must be an apostate who doesn't accept the Book of Abraham, simply because he is trying to stretch out an olive branch to those who have lost faith in it.

I don't know what he's trying to do. You don't seem to now, either, although in the past you have happily linked arms with him and others (some named, some not) against the traditional FARMS defense of the Book of Abraham. One thing is clear, however. If anyone takes the position that the Book of Abraham was the creation of Joseph Smith's imagination, that it was not translated by the gift and power of God (as the church claims the Book of Mormon was), and that it was not an authentic ancient text, then that is an apostate position, and in outright rebellion against official church doctrine. Whether such a person is an "apostate" in some other global sense is another matter.

He respects the critical arguments and doesn't believe it is useful to reject everything just because a critic presents it. He is a true scholar.

Not knowing what that even means, you're deployment of the term is unpersuasive.

You and Schryver stink of this fear and loathing.

You project so much you're beginning to flicker.

Folks like Hauglid and Bokovoy have profound disagreements with your approach.

Be more specific please.

[_Runtu]

No, you're just riding to the rescue, squirting ink.

Because you misread Kevin's post.

Standard circling of the wagons (of which there is no doubt, because if Don was a clear and unambiguous member of the apologetics movement, you and Kevin wouldn't defend him if it was the last thing you ever did on this earth. Does Kevin defend me, Wade, Will Gee, Rhodes, Peterson, Nibley, etc?

I've defended you, Wade, Peterson, and Nibley on numerous occasions. I don't know Gee or Rhodes enough to defend them. Unlike you, I don't consider people who disagree with me to be my mortal enemies.

This tells me that Don holds some importance for people like you and Graham who remain outside the church as perennial critics as a kind of iconic figure who can stand within the church but at the same time in some sense assuage the conscience of critics outside it by lending support to their core motives. I don't know what it is, but I do know that Don seems to hold an unusual place within LDS intellectual circles regarding that which he represents to critics of it.

Don is an old friend, and it doesn't matter in the least to me that he went back to the church. At this point I couldn't imagine going back, but I respect Don and his reasons for doing so. If I had the same spiritual experiences and beliefs Don has had, I would go back.

His close relationship to Graham - one of the most hostile, visceral, and deeply alienated apostate critics in modern history, at least on the Internet, while he seems distant from, say, Book of Abraham apologetics, is interesting, to say the least.

As I've said to Kevin before, Kevin's posting style hasn't change a whit since he switched teams. He's as much an asshole online as he used to be.

This is an odd place to stand, and that's all I'm trying to get at. Kevin seems to have fled the field of battle, so we'll have to see what he comes up with).

Whatever you think of me (I know, not much), my support for Don's decisions does not reflect badly on him.

[_Droopy]

Take your pick and answer the question. The fact is I've been alientaed by no one and nothing.

But from the church, from the gospel, and from anyone who dares defend it.

This is your wishful thinking getting the better of you again. You want so desperately to believe that I'm despised among Mormons as much as you are, but I highly doubt that is the case.

I know of no one in the church, or in apologetics, who despise me, save perhaps for a few people and moderators at the MDDB who fancy themselves among the Anointed.

The very fact that I am disliked by some of the membership of that board, given that I have been defending the Church there for upwards of ten years now against any and all criticism, and that my defenses have been of the church's authoritative, established, settled, official doctrines, counsel, and policy is, indeed, cause for concern, but not concern for me.

Presenting more conspiracy theory isn't doing yourself any favors. There is no evidence of any of this, only in your deluded mind.

Take it in and hold it in your lungs a little longer, Kevin, until you see John Lenin.

You just refuse to accept the idea that they reject you because you're exactly the kind of despicable character you try to project onto me.

"They," whoever they are (and I know who they are) have serious problems with both my political philosophy and my apologetic defense of the Church, which actually defends the church and does not dabble or tolerate "neo-orthodox" diversions into fashionable syncretism.

You don't debate, you lecture, judge, and insult.

Yes, about 5% of the time, primarily because the intellectual proactive apostate world is people overwhelmingly by people like you, I do cast some insults, now and then. I also lecture on occasion (nothing wrong with that). Most of my time, I'd say 90%, has been both in critical debate and in a futile attempt to engage in civil, critical discourse with the likes of you and other critics.

In any case, even if your characterization of me was close to the truth, it would be a very fat kettle calling a pot black.

That's you're MO and they figured it out. I've discussed no politics on that forum that was allowed to stand, and I have been thread-banned on a number of occasions just this past month, when no rules were broken. Saying I receive special treatment there is just idiotic.

Oh my...

You were allowed to run rampant over there for thread after thread while Will was banned from the discussion. You were allowed to flame, bash, character assassinate, and spew insults almost in every paragraph of your semi-intellectual diatribes on the KEP. Others were banned outright for calling you out, while you were simply given warnings and allowed to continue.

The reason is that there are a core group of LDS intellectuals there who consider themselves an elite group above the apologetic fray and who themselves have begun a slow if consistent moving away from defending some of the church's core truth claims as given to a more "neo-orthodox" or liberal perspective, and who, as is traditional with these kinds of intellectuals, have no toleration for dissent or alternative perspectives.

The fact that they prefer me over you doesn't mean they prefer me over the Church. It just means you're all that more insufferable than I am. Accept it and get over it.

Or it means that FAIR and the FAIR message board has lost is rudder as well as its sails, and is drifting. FAIR, in my view, has become far too academic, far too concerned with degrees, credentials, and arcane theorizing regarding rather obscure issues in biblical studies etc., and has begun to leave the apologetic project for a much more tightly wound intellectual cubicle. It won't prosper, and it won't do the church much good in that mode.

I already told you. I have no idea.

Yes you do, Pinocchio.