Allen Wyatt, Mike Parker & FAIR: A Growing Fear of Dehlin?

[_Kishkumen]

The document probably doesn't exist. If it does, it's probably a mild critique, not a hit piece the shock therapists want to make it out to be.
mormonstories said so himself.

LOL! Wow. What a brainiac.

"It probably doesn't exist, but if it does, surely it is just a harmless scholarly disagreement of the gentlemanly type. It could never be the thing that I dearly don't want you to think it is, with my thinly-veiled agenda: a rather rancorous and insulting attack piece of novella length. Anything but that! I insist!" -Simon Belmont

[_Kishkumen]

Try it sometime.

In the words of Simon Belmont:

Because I admitted to not knowing much about a particular subject? No, Scratch, that is not me getting "owned," that is me being an adult. You should try it sometime.

Or:

Please see above, where I said I did not know much about it. That, Kevin, is the honorable thing to do. You should try it -- it would work for just about any LDS subject you think you are the authority on.

[_RayAgostini]

That's fine, Ray, but your blog entry is more just about the intransigence of the apologists concerning certain doctrinal or historical points. Well, fine: we can criticize those sorts of things, but to my mind that isn't really what we've been talking about here. Rather, we've been criticizing the Mopologists' tendency to attack--to smear, to write "hit pieces," and so on. Your blog post doesn't really touch upon that at all.

This is what I was addressing, the bold part in particular, in your post:

What you seem to be arguing, in effect here, is that one should never criticize the Mopologists, because it will only anger them and cause them to go out and viciously attack, smear, and tear down other people at an even worse rate,..

Several times I've been told that I want to "mute criticism" of Mormonism/Mormon apologetics. That is not true. What I'm against, again perhaps ironically, is smearing Mormonism/Mormons/Mormon apologists, and Scratch, don't tell me you can't see that happening on this board in truckloads!

That's what's really ironical about you, Scratch.

I followed John's posts on Facebook a great deal (probably one of my real regrets about leaving Facebook), and he always insisted on being civil towards Mormons (incuding "apologists"), and was never afraid to boot someone off a thread, or even his friends' list, if they went overboard by way of smearing or denigration (it happens on both sides), and that's what I mean by a "constructive" approach.

You encourage conflict, Scratch, and almost beckon people to choose a side, and you attack people who don't choose your side. I don't know who here can't plainly see that. To an extent, I think DCP does the same (another irony), and you're actually both similar in some ways, but DCP is above board and upfront, and everyone knows who he is, love him or hate him. You have a "protection" that he doesn't, and I would think he feels far more accountable for what he says than you do. You're going back 20+years to hold him accountable - and he doesn't even know who you are. I don't call that fairness, by any stretch, and smear campaigns to counter smear campaigns will eventually backfire.

The worst thing about you, Scratch, is that you're an anonymous "hit man". You don't have the gumption to put your name to your trenchant criticisms. In saying that, I'm not besmirching posters who have reasons to remain anonymous, but who don't embark on six year campaigns of what is nothing more than full-on and almost obsessive character assassination.

[_Doctor Scratch]

That's fine, Ray, but your blog entry is more just about the intransigence of the apologists concerning certain doctrinal or historical points. Well, fine: we can criticize those sorts of things, but to my mind that isn't really what we've been talking about here. Rather, we've been criticizing the Mopologists' tendency to attack--to smear, to write "hit pieces," and so on. Your blog post doesn't really touch upon that at all.

This is what I was addressing, the bold part in particular, in your post:

What you seem to be arguing, in effect here, is that one should never criticize the Mopologists, because it will only anger them and cause them to go out and viciously attack, smear, and tear down other people at an even worse rate,..

Several times I've been told that I want to "mute criticism" of Mormonism/Mormon apologetics. That is not true. What I'm against, again perhaps ironically, is smearing Mormonism/Mormons/Mormon apologists, and Scratch, don't tell me you can't see that happening on this board in truckloads!

It's not happening in "truckloads." That's an exaggeration. And you do sometimes want to "mute" criticism. You vacilate back and forth between absolutely hating Mormonism and attacking critics.

That's what's really ironical about you, Scratch.

I followed John's posts on Facebook a great deal (probably one of my real regrets about leaving Facebook), and he always insisted on being civil towards Mormons (incuding "apologists"), and was never afraid to boot someone off a thread, or even his friends' list, if they went overboard by way of smearing or denigration (it happens on both sides), and that's what I mean by a "constructive" approach.

You encourage conflict, Scratch, and almost beckon people to choose a side, and you attack people who don't choose your side.

Really? Jason Bourne and Liz both clearly oppose "my side," but it's not as if I'm relentlessly attacking them, is it? Am I attacking you?

I don't know who here can't plainly see that. To an extent, I think DCP does the same (another irony), and you're actually both similar in some ways, but DCP is above board and upfront,

Oh, so he's openly clarified his version of the events being described in this thread?

and everyone knows who he is, love him or hate him. You have a "protection" that he doesn't,

I do? I have the aegis of the Brethren, and the Church's money and lawyers? I have a sinecure at BYU? A have a cadre of fellow professional Mopologists? I have a Skinny-L list? I have a host of "fanboys" who (rather mysteriously) show up to flood threads with nonsense, Scientology-style? I have connections at the Strengthening Church Members Committee? I have a professional, Church-appointed fundraiser who helps me forward my agenda? I sit on several committees that are devoted to advancing my agenda?

Part of DCP's "protection" has long been his notoriety, Ray. That's ultimately why he decided to drop his "Free Thinker" and "Logic Chopper" sockpuppets: it's because he knew that his effect would be greater if he just posted with his in real life name. It's all part of the game that he and his friends have been playing for three decades now.

The worst thing about you, Scratch, is that you're an anonymous "hit man". You don't have the gumption to put your name to your trenchant criticisms. In saying that, I'm not besmirching posters who have reasons to remain anonymous, but who don't embark on six year campaigns of what is nothing more than full-on and almost obsessive character assassination.

I, and everyone else here, have good reasons to remain anonymous. Merely calling out someone's bad behavior and/or viciousness is not "character assassination."

[_Kishkumen]

Try it sometime.

In the words of Simon Belmont:

Because I admitted to not knowing much about a particular subject? No, Scratch, that is not me getting "owned," that is me being an adult. You should try it sometime.

Or:

Please see above, where I said I did not know much about it. That, Kevin, is the honorable thing to do. You should try it -- it would work for just about any LDS subject you think you are the authority on.

And

I make choices, and I live with the consequences. That's called being an adult. You should try it.

And:

Hey Kishkumen, have you heard of the Atlantic Knot? Try it, it's a fun knot wear around.

Then again could this be our old friend The Nehor? Is it possible that both static and Simon Belmont are merely Nehor sock puppets?

Look at this:

The advantage of not being dishonest is that you don't have that problem. You should try it some time.

And this:

When I pray. Try it sometime.

A little less damning:

When in Rome.......

I've had it hurled at me so many time I thought I'd try it out.

Maybe a little closer:

Follow the Savior's advice, "Come and See." Then try it. Live some of it and judge the results.

Huh. I dunno! Interesting.

[_RayAgostini]

It's not happening in "truckloads." That's an exaggeration. And you do sometimes want to "mute" criticism. You vacilate back and forth between absolutely hating Mormonism and attacking critics.

I'm really not interested in going back and forth on this with you, Scratch, and it must be boring to others. I've had my say, and you can heed it or trash it. That's my opinion. Your anonymity is your greatest liability, and it will remain so, in my opinion.

I don't think, as far as I can recall, that I ever "hated" Mormonism. Yes, I did grow to "hate" MAD/MDDB, and the conniving that went on there, particularly the circumstances of my banning, and I have absolutely zero desire to ever go back there.

It is possible that sometime in the late '80s I did "hate" Mormonism, but that was followed by five unsuccessful returns over an 11-12 year period.

Otherwise:

Booed from a Mormon forum in 2001 for even suggesting that the Book of Mormon was most likely not history.

Booted from RFM in 2002 for daring to express how I felt about the Book of Mormon, "spiritually", and for criticising Mr.Benson.

Booted from Exmo-Social in 2003.

Banned from ZLMB in 2004, for "criticising the temple" and basically being an "anti-Mormon".

Banned from LDSTalk.

Banned from LDSNet.

Banned from MAD.

It has been an interesting journey. Someone, in almost a flash of inspiration, seemed to nail the mystery two years ago:

"Those who discover much truth...must, in developing it, pass through many changes of opinion. They must rise, and fall back, and rise higher again, and fall and rise again, till they reach the level table-land of truth...I fancy it is a law, that the greater the mind, the stronger the heart, the larger will the oscillations be." - Charles Kingsley

[_Doctor Scratch]

I've only been banned from one forum, Ray. And I don't think that "YOUR F***ING MISSIONARIES ARE DEAD" occurred in the "late '80s," for what it's worth. Finally, I'm not impressed with your record of "flip-flopping." That doesn't prove anything to me beyond the fact that you're unstable, and that you're a flip-flopper. You've always tried to stake your credibility on the fact that you have somehow been able to successfully "straddle" the line between critic and Mopologist, but I don't think that's true. Often your "shift" to one side or the other had been prompted by some angry person's nasty comment about one of your kids (or for some other reason). Not all that long ago, EAllusion, who has significant experience in working with people with mental illness, suggested that you might be suffering from something. Now, I think it would be really mean to say that about you for no good reason, but EA is one of the most even-keeled, scientific posters on all of the boards. So if he says you show signs of "mental illness," I'm not going to dismiss his observations lightly. Sorry, mate. Get help and treatment, and then come back.

[_RayAgostini]

I've only been banned from one forum, Ray. And I don't think that "YOUR F***ING MISSIONARIES ARE DEAD" occurred in the "late '80s," for what it's worth. Finally, I'm not impressed with your record of "flip-flopping." That doesn't prove anything to me beyond the fact that you're unstable, and that you're a flip-flopper. You've always tried to stake your credibility on the fact that you have somehow been able to successfully "straddle" the line between critic and Mopologist, but I don't think that's true. Often your "shift" to one side or the other had been prompted by some angry person's nasty comment about one of your kids (or for some other reason). Not all that long ago, EAllusion, who has significant experience in working with people with mental illness, suggested that you might be suffering from something. Now, I think it would be really mean to say that about you for no good reason, but EA is one of the most even-keeled, scientific posters on all of the boards. So if he says you show signs of "mental illness," I'm not going to dismiss his observations lightly. Sorry, mate. Get help and treatment, and then come back.

Another one of your "hit pieces"? Kish was very offended when DCP suggested he was mentally unstable, and had a "split personality". So, is Kish a vacillator, and "mentally unstable". I'll dig up old posts on this if necessary.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I've only been banned from one forum, Ray. And I don't think that "YOUR F***ING MISSIONARIES ARE DEAD" occurred in the "late '80s," for what it's worth. Finally, I'm not impressed with your record of "flip-flopping." That doesn't prove anything to me beyond the fact that you're unstable, and that you're a flip-flopper. You've always tried to stake your credibility on the fact that you have somehow been able to successfully "straddle" the line between critic and Mopologist, but I don't think that's true. Often your "shift" to one side or the other had been prompted by some angry person's nasty comment about one of your kids (or for some other reason). Not all that long ago, EAllusion, who has significant experience in working with people with mental illness, suggested that you might be suffering from something. Now, I think it would be really mean to say that about you for no good reason, but EA is one of the most even-keeled, scientific posters on all of the boards. So if he says you show signs of "mental illness," I'm not going to dismiss his observations lightly. Sorry, mate. Get help and treatment, and then come back.

Another one of your "hit pieces"? Kish was very offended when DCP suggested he was mentally unstable, and had a "split personality". So, is Kish a vacillator, and "mentally unstable". I'll dig up old posts on this if necessary.

Leave Kish alone, Ray.

[_RayAgostini]

Leave Kish alone, Ray.

He once said the very same things about you, that I said and am now saying. You pulled this card, Scratch, and it's about time reasonable people realised what a double-minded deceiver and cajoler you are, parading under the banner of "objectivity".