Did Scott Gordon Meet with the "Oaks Faction"?

[_Doctor Scratch]

Re: why Oaks would be the one to tell FAIR to tone it down... The reasoning is that Oaks would have been told to do this by the FP and the rest of the Twelve. The thinking is that Packer and Perry have seniority, and that Pres. Monson sides with the "Packer Faction." Thus, Oaks would have no choice but to comply and deliver the message to Scott Gordon and FAIR. No one is suggesting that Oaks would give the order to FAIR of his own accord.

That's going to need some lion's teeth, Doctor. That is, the idea (and I know it's only thinking) that Monson sides with a "Packer faction". I've been hearing these "faction" stories since the early 1980s, but in those days it was Maxwell/Oaks vs The Old Guard. They were supposedly "progressives" and the talk of the time was getting the hierarchy to change the method of ascendency being based on seniority in the Twelve, so that a "younger progressive" could take over. Nothing, that I can tell, has come of these rumours.

Ray---

That's fascinating. To use your terminology, the "Old Guard" appears to have triumphed as of late. So: you're right. "Nothing...has come of these rumours." Meaning, of course, that Chapel Mormonism has triumphed.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

How on earth does Elder Oaks being "familiar" with FAIR mean that the Brethren are "receiving reports" or actively "monitoring" the organization? Scott's total comments seemed to state the complete opposite.

Is this just another example of the rampant paranoia that some here experience, or is it Scratch just trying to cling to his ridiculous theories even after they've been shown to be false?

Hello Sir,

What is it, exactly, about a word that is defined as "well known or easily recognized, well informed about or knowing thoroughly" that is such a mystery to you? Dr. Scratch is spot on, as usual, with his observations.

Your catty nattering is less than helpful.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

[_truth dancer]

Yes, I'm sure there's a "war room" beneath Church headquarters dedicated to monitoring messege boards in cyberspace.

Actually, we had a very good source admit to just this... OK, well not exactly a "war room" but it became clear that the LDS church monitors hundreds of sites critical of their church.

If I recall correctly, some apologists mentioned this on their site however it was quickly removed when the discussion erupted on the FAIR board. Anyone remember this?



~td~

[_Droopy]

How on earth does Elder Oaks being "familiar" with FAIR mean that the Brethren are "receiving reports" or actively "monitoring" the organization? Scott's total comments seemed to state the complete opposite.

Is this just another example of the rampant paranoia that some here experience, or is it Scratch just trying to cling to his ridiculous theories even after they've been shown to be false?

Hello Sir,

What is it, exactly, about a word that is defined as "well known or easily recognized, well informed about or knowing thoroughly" that is such a mystery to you? Dr. Scratch is spot on, as usual, with his observations.

Your catty nattering is less than helpful.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

What "observations" would those be, pray tell?

Joseph Antley pretty much covered it all, I think. Scratch covering his backside, all bathed in the cold, bracing waters of paranoia.

[_Droopy]

Actually, we had a very good source admit to just this... OK, well not exactly a "war room" but it became clear that the LDS church monitors hundreds of sites critical of their church.

If I recall correctly, some apologists mentioned this on their site however it was quickly removed when the discussion erupted on the FAIR board. Anyone remember this?

What is this "source", and what does such "monitoring" entail? We know the Church has long kept a repository of anti-Mormon literature, so it wouldn't surprise me that they have downloaded statements of principles and core arguments made by the major internet critics.

But "monitoring"? Monitoring what? Message board discussions? Is the Church paying people a salary to surf critic message boards?

[_EAllusion]

all bathed in the cold, bracing waters of paranoia.

Tell me again how the AAAS, publisher of Science, is controlled by a cabal of leftists who are ideologically determined to push misleading propaganda in an effort to destroy the traditional family and so pave the way to forcing people to bend their wills to that of a totalitarian state. I'd like to hear about that some more.

[_Dr. Shades]

Actually, we had a very good source admit to just this... OK, well not exactly a "war room" but it became clear that the LDS church monitors hundreds of sites critical of their church.

15,000 was the quoted number.

If I recall correctly, some apologists mentioned this on their site however it was quickly removed when the discussion erupted on the FAIR board. Anyone remember this?

It was one of the founders of the More Good Foundation who mentioned the figure in passing on BYU's website. Within a day of someone pointing it out, either here or on RFM, it was pulled.

FOCUS:

Something's not adding up. If the truth is as blasé as Gordon's account makes it sound, then why on earth didn't he just come out and say so during the pages upon pages of the main thread? Why the delay? Why not just straightforwardly answer beastie's question at the first opportunity? Was he playing for time or something?

Was there more than one meeting, and he simply mentioned three out of the four, much like Joseph Smith's accounts of the First Vision?

Someone help me out here.

[_Doctor Scratch]

FOCUS:

Something's not adding up. If the truth is as blasé as Gordon's account makes it sound, then why on earth didn't he just come out and say so during the pages upon pages of the main thread? Why the delay? Why not just straightforwardly answer beastie's question at the first opportunity? Was he playing for time or something?

Was there more than one meeting, and he simply mentioned three out of the four, much like Joseph Smith's accounts of the First Vision?

Someone help me out here.

I agree, Shades. It's remarkably odd. We know, based on an eyewitness account, that Gordon was reading the original, closed thread for over an hour on Sunday, and yet he never bothered to respond to it. My guess is that the apologists were furiously sending PMs back and forth, with Gordon and DCP figuring out exactly how to proceed. Thus, the questions in DCP's newly launched thread were probably designed to "bail out" Gordon in just the right way.

[_Droopy]

all bathed in the cold, bracing waters of paranoia.

Tell me again how the AAAS, publisher of Science, is controlled by a cabal of leftists who are ideologically determined to push misleading propaganda in an effort to destroy the traditional family and so pave the way to forcing people to bend their wills to that of a totalitarian state. I'd like to hear about that some more.

Its the IPCC, not Science, that is controlled by a cabal of leftists ideologically determined to destroy liberal democracy and capitalism everywhere. This isn't a conspiracy theory, but observable fact, a fact that many of the best minds of the era have been pointing out for quite sometime.

Clearly, the CRU and the University of East Anglia, elements at the NOAA, and James Hansen's little cabal at NASA have also come under the control of tiny bands of ideological fanatics (and media hounds) hell bent on a preconceived outcome. And as the hacked emails demonstrate, there is a conspiratorial tone (and bunker mentality) to much of this behavior.

The editorial boards of Science and especially Nature, went "green" long years ago, which only indicates the standard ideological similarity (and associated groupthink) obtaining within much of academia and the corruption of the peer review process (and purpose) that has been well covered by some of the most eminent critics in climate science (Richard Lindzen, among others, has written extensively on this issue).

That you don't understand the difference between a conspiracy theory and philosophical/political analysis is to your intellectual discredit, not mine. If you are actually attempting, or implying a defense of, AGW, this only reflects poorly on the level of intellectual honesty you are willing to bring to the table of such discussion. It reflects, really, the degree of intellectual honesty you're willing to throw under the bus to remain ideologically pure.

[_Droopy]

Something's not adding up. If the truth is as blasé as Gordon's account makes it sound, then why on earth didn't he just come out and say so during the pages upon pages of the main thread? Why the delay? Why not just straightforwardly answer beastie's question at the first opportunity? Was he playing for time or something?

Was there more than one meeting, and he simply mentioned three out of the four, much like Joseph Smith's accounts of the First Vision?

Someone help me out here.

I'll help you out Slim. Go back to where I've just come from. Start drinking, and drinking heavily. It will probably clear your mind to a point at which you might actually be able to think in a coherent, serious, intellectually substantive manner, and it may actually decrease (due to its depressive effects) the level of your paranoia and the fantastic phantoms conjured by your overactive imagination.

For you, Shades, pink elephants would be far preferable to the place you're at now.