A New Smear Piece in "Mormon Interpreter"

[_Pahoran]

Reminds me of the very useful critique that Pahoran gave of my work as year or so ago.

Your work? You mean, your hilariously bad rewrite of the Book of Mormon?

Tell me: was that "peer reviewed" by your fellow "scholars" at "Cassius University?"

If so, that would explain a lot.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Doctor Scratch]

Wow. OK. So, you are a bigot too.

Since your definition of a "bigot" is anyone who doesn't share your entirely controlling prejudices, I take that as a compliment.

How is it an "entirely controlling prejudice" to think that it's wrong to dismiss not just a person, but that person's entire written output, as "Korihor"-like and a "traitorous" simply on the basis of sexual orientation?

[_Pahoran]

Since your definition of a "bigot" is anyone who doesn't share your entirely controlling prejudices, I take that as a compliment.

How is it an "entirely controlling prejudice" to think that it's wrong to dismiss not just a person, but that person's entire written output, as "Korihor"-like and a "traitorous" simply on the basis of sexual orientation?

As you perfectly well know, the notion that someone's "entire written output" might be dismissed "simply on the basis of sexual orientation" is not under discussion. That's because, as you perfectly well know, that isn't even a recognisable caricature of the position of the target of your obsessive compulsive hate campaign. I'm wondering if even Kishkumen can support such a complete canard.

Although I admit that I'm not wondering very hard.

Incidentally, can you substantiate your lie that Dan Peterson ever called Ron Priddis a "sodomite?"

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Kishkumen]

Since your definition of a "bigot" is anyone who doesn't share your entirely controlling prejudices, I take that as a compliment.

How is it an "entirely controlling prejudice" to think that it's wrong to dismiss not just a person, but that person's entire written output, as "Korihor"-like and a "traitorous" simply on the basis of sexual orientation?

Yeah, I have to say that Pahoran's vapid response is more than a little disappointing. I am unaware of the prejudice to which he refers. And I am straining to find anything in his entire post that approaches a rebuttal of some kind or even substantive commentary on much of anything.

I guess that Pahoran fully endorses the view that immorality leads to unbelief, which is interesting, given the fact that a great number of Christians would view Joseph Smith as someone who was entirely immoral, but nonetheless given to excesses of belief. I do not agree with their view, but it just shows you how shaky these kinds of arguments can be.

It is sort of like Falwell blaming things like 9/11 and the terrible Monsoon on "the gays" and so forth. Maybe Pahoran agrees with that as well.

[_Kishkumen]

As you perfectly well know, the notion that someone's "entire written output" might be dismissed "simply on the basis of sexual orientation" is not under discussion.

Unless, of course, that output is on some subject, whatever subject really, that Jones does not like and was written by someone he believes to have been immoral in some way. Then it is very easy for Jones to dismiss them and use them as proof of his idiotic theory at the same time.

[_Pahoran]

Liz,

I certainly know that Dr. Scratch is quite capable of defending himself, but I have to tell you that he is no jerk. He is one of the most cordial, pleasant, entertaining and kind person that you could meet.

It's often been noted that even the most vicious haters can be entirely pleasant to those they don't hate. The worthless Scratch hates the Church of Jesus Christ and especially those who serve and/or defend it, but why on earth should he hate you?

Dr. Scratch just happens to be very passionate about exposing the unchristlike behavior of Mopologetics. I for one, applaud his efforts and feel that he is making a huge, positive change.

This is really quite amusing. Granted that the worthless Scratch is a legend in his own lunchtime, the reality is that, outside of this little echo chamber, he is quite unknown, and his opinions are entirely irrelevant.

I am certain that if he offended you, it certainly wasn't intentional and just a misunderstanding.

And I'm certain that it was intentional.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Kishkumen]

The worthless Scratch hates the Church of Jesus Christ and especially those who serve and/or defend it, but why on earth should he hate you?

Yes, why should Dr. Scratch hate a lone bishop of the LDS Church just because he does not like certain apologists of the LDS Church very much?

One wonders.

[_Pahoran]

Yeah, I have to say that Pahoran's vapid response is more than a little disappointing. I am unaware of the prejudice to which he refers.

Really? Self-awareness is not your strong suit, I take it.

And I am straining to find anything in his entire post that approaches a rebuttal of some kind or even substantive commentary on much of anything.

It's at least as substantive as your fallacious, dismissive diatribe.

I guess that Pahoran fully endorses the view that immorality leads to unbelief,

That's a very safe guess, since that is orthodox, revealed LDS doctrine, and Pahoran is a believing Latter-day Saint.

which is interesting, given the fact that a great number of Christians would view Joseph Smith as someone who was entirely immoral, but nonetheless given to excesses of belief. I do not agree with their view, but it just shows you how shaky these kinds of arguments can be.

The fact that you have to resort to another example of smearing by association shows that you still don't have anything resembling a valid counter-argument.

It is sort of like Falwell blaming things like 9/11 and the terrible Monsoon on "the gays" and so forth. Maybe Pahoran agrees with that as well.

Or maybe he doesn't. Still relentlessly trying to smear by association, I see.

However, since what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and with far better justification: as the guarantor of the scholarly standards of "Cassius University," how do you explain MCB's ridiculous "reinterpretation" (actually a reinvention) of the Book of Mormon, found here?

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Pahoran]

Yes, why should Dr. Scratch hate a lone bishop of the LDS Church just because he does not like certain apologists of the LDS Church very much?

One wonders.

More to the point, why should he hate someone who opposes the Church as thoroughly as he does, and who poses as an active member, just as Scratch himself did for years?

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Darth J]

I guess that Pahoran fully endorses the view that immorality leads to unbelief,

That's a very safe guess, since that is orthodox, revealed LDS doctrine, and Pahoran is a believing Latter-day Saint.

It's also orthodox, revealed LDS doctrine that there was no death on this planet prior to circa 6,000 B.C.E., when the human race began with a single breeding pair in Missouri who were compelled to eat a piece of forbidden fruit by a literal talking snake. So we can clearly see that if a given proposition comes from orthodox, revealed LDS doctrine, that proposition is objectively true.

However, since what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and with far better justification: as the guarantor of the scholarly standards of "Cassius University," how do you explain MCB's ridiculous "reinterpretation" (actually a reinvention) of the Book of Mormon, found here?

The best part of a humorless religious fanatic not getting a joke is watching how he assumes that a parody of the alleged scholarship he is defending is meant to be taken seriously.