Aristotle Smith wrote:In a perverse way, MsJack's scuttling of his publication was the luckiest think that ever happened to Willy. Now he can cry persecution and have popcorn parties with DCP, Hamblin, and Skousen while simultaneously never having written anything. Willy gets what he wants, insider status, while never having to do anything to earn insider status, i.e. never having to write anything for publication.
Plus the rest of the FARMS crew gets to cry like the babies they are for forever. They can fundraise for their forthcoming apologetics ventures based on "anti-Mormon persecution" from "hypocritical Evangelicals" just like they did in the good old days. They are reliving their glory days, days that have passed and most likely won't ever return. I'm almost tempted to suggest letting them relive their last pathetic adventure in peace, because after that is going to come a long night of loneliness for them. Almost.
You hit the nail on the head.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
The apostates and anti-Mormons don’t, in fact want to engage the issues and ideas of their critics; their goal is to suppress and censor the publication of ideas they dislike
The other angle that is frustrating is that Bill happily participated in a message board for years that he praised that involved obvious and consistent use of censorship to suppress and control conversation with critics rather than fairly address arguments. He's projecting his side's own faults onto a group of people who by and large rather eagerly want free discourse that he won't provide. Indeed, he is rarely found outside of environments where the narrative is controlled through selective presentation of information in his favor. Hypocrite is too kind of a word for this.
I really do think it's probably fellow believers complaining about the tactics of Hamblin and his ilk. I've long thought that all it would take would be one grandchild of one GA to wander onto MDDB with the "wrong" question and be given the treatment to alert GAs as to the danger of this approach.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
It's interesting that Bill "The Hutt" Hamblin is able to somehow discern that the anonymous letter-writers are "anti-Mormons and apostates." It's interesting, too, that he insists on these kinds of debates occuring "openly" when we all know that he censored Brent Metcalfe's comments on his blog. What if I were to cut-and-paste and link to his infamous "K-word" comments on FAIR? Would he allow the stuff to be republished on his blog?
Regardless, I think his continued blogging on this is seriously misguided. His friend DCP has been wise in his (relative) restraint. He says that his Dept. Chair was laughingly dismissive about all this, but I rather doubt that's the case. I.e., was it derisive laughter? Nervous laughter? Something makes me suspect that Dept. Chairs don't really like it when one of their faculty members is doing things that are causing a stir.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Could you point me to a discussion/topic where gee's review of chris' paper is addressed- i can't believe he was successful in having the mha not publish the paper.
Are message boards and the blogs really that important? I mean... really? They keep telling us we're nothing, yet we keep popping up on their blogs, and obviously in their in real life conversations.
Maybe we're more important than they'd like us to think?
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Could you point me to a discussion/topic where gee's review of chris' paper is addressed- i can't believe he was successful in having the mha not publish the paper.
thanx in advance
k
It hasn't been discussed on the forums.
In a nutshell, Chris was rejected after getting two "blind" reviews of his article, and after analyzing the style and wording in one review, Andrew Cook, Chris and I determined that one of the reviewers was without a doubt John Gee. Just the stuff he was saying made no sense. Like accusing Chris of calling Gee a liar, which is something he never did in his article. It just stunk of vindictive censorship and John Gee was the one person who benefited the most from having this article suppressed.
Chris's article was then published by the John Whitmer Association, without any roadblocks.
Kevin Graham wrote:Chris's article was then published by the John Whitmer Association, without any roadblocks.
Now what can we do to get William's paper published? Picket? Write letters? Campaign?
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
