Did Scott Gordon Meet with the "Oaks Faction"?

[_Droopy]

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.

Could that be because Scott Gordon had no desire to join you in your mental masturbation, and contribute to this sordid little orgy of mutual self abuse?

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.

You do me proud Sandra. I start a thread satirizing your style, and you then imitate me in return.

Tragedy becomes farce yet again.

[_Ray A]

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.

Oaks and Maxwell, though perceived as "progressives", in effect later became the "Old Guard". There were several reasons for this earlier line of thinking. Maxwell was perceived as an "intellectual", and Oaks' co-authorship of Carthage Conspiracy (with Marvin Hill) placed him among "objective Mormon academics". Here is what one reviewer wrote:

I cannot praise this book enough for its objectivity. The authors remain completely aloof from bias, and focus instead on an analysis of the trial. One should not read this book with the intent of learning every detail about the Smiths' murder. For those interested in knowing about the legal proceedings that followed their deaths, however, this book will be a valuable tool.

Although it was not known early on, as time went on it became clear that Oaks was as stern and steadfast a TBM apostle as Packer. Some of his later statements, such as the idea that Joseph Smith should be protected and defended at any cost, even if it meant censoring unsavoury facts, was completely shocking in comparison to his earlier "objective academic" work and ideals.

[_Droopy]

Oaks and Maxwell, though perceived as "progressives", in effect later became the "Old Guard".

Perceived as such by whom, when, where, in what context and according to what source?

Although it was not known early on, as time went on it became clear that Oaks was as stern and steadfast a TBM apostle as Packer.

Totally, utterly and completely over your head, isn't it Ray?

[_Doctor Scratch]

Interestingly, my speculation about PMs being furiously exchanged at MAD has now morphed into "emails" by DCP's reckoning. Similarly, his figure for the cutbacks at the MI continue to shift. How strange it is that he can't seem to get anything right! Particularly given his fetishization of accuracy.

Something else also occurred to me. Back when Dr. Shades posted about his meeting with Rodney Meldrum, Meldrum apparently told a story of his meeting with Scott Gordon. When Meldrum met with Gordon, he said that the entire "FAIR board of directors" was on the line (or on speakerphone, or whatever). Incidentally, Daniel Peterson is on FAIR's board of directors, which means that he was directly involved in the decision to smear Rod Meldrum.

Meanwhile, the testimony-bearing site, "Mormon Scholars Testify," which was probably erected as a kind of "penance" for the attacks on Meldrum, appears to have leveled off in terms of its growth.

[_Droopy]

Its out of your control, isn't it Scratch? You're on a psychological roller coaster you can't get off.

Coming immediately upon the end of one crash and burn session, you begin yet another series of fabrications, tall tales, and deceptions. All of this is, I'm sure, more of a tactic then a serious intellectual endeavor. Wading through the complex and ever expanding web of deceit and puffery is a full time job and one becomes exhausted simply contemplating it.

[_Droopy]

Scott Lloyd Said:

Has anyone noticed, in retrospect, that the Stalker was lying about not being aware of a meeting between Elder Oaks and Scott Gordon until beastie posed the question on this board?

Note the portion I emphasized in bold face.

As beastie now admits, she got the notion from Scratch in the first place. Yet he lets on here that he was surprised by her question to Scott.

DCP:

LOL! Good catch.

Oh, what a tangled web Scratch weaves, whene'er he practices to deceive.

How long before you just pack your bags and go home Scratch? How many caught red handed's is it going to take?

[_Ray A]

Perceived as such by whom, when, where, in what context and according to what source?


Totally, utterly and completely over your head, isn't it Ray?

The really sad thing about you is that while you clamour like an attention-whore, neither side takes you seriously. You come here acting like a useless shiver looking for a spine to run up. A dog constantly barking back at his own echo.

[_Doctor Scratch]

It seems that I'm needed to clarify yet another inaccuracy:

* There haven't been any "cutbacks" at the Maxwell Institute except for the standard University-wide stuff in a bad economy, which is also pretty much standard at universities and non-profits and corporations across the United States and beyond. (Brethren-dictated cuts motivated by unhappiness with what we're doing? Pure fiction. We don't get a budget from the Brethren in any case.)

Actually, the story was that the Maxwell Institute's huge budget request was denied. And I don't know that there necessarily would have been any "cutbacks"---yet. Remember: the claim is that the shortfall was covered by a donation from a wealthy Latter-day Saint (rumored to be one of the Cannons), but that the MI was told it would need to trim its budget down to 5 million by fiscal year 2012.

And c'mon, Dan. We both know why you keep changing the details. Is that really going to help your case, in the end? Methinks not.

[_The Nehor]

Sandra really needs to calm down before she blows a gasket.

[_Ray A]

Meanwhile, the testimony-bearing site, "Mormon Scholars Testify," which was probably erected as a kind of "penance" for the attacks on Meldrum, appears to have leveled off in terms of its growth.

I'm willing to take DCP's claim that Meldrum had nothing motivational to do with his site, but what it does indicate to me, at one level, is that he's following the Book of Mormon teaching to "bear pure testimony" [against them].

Failing "concrete proof" (and "50-50 propositions" holding much weight), this is the last "persuasive" resort. That is, "pure testimony".

When you boil it all down Mormonism cannot stand on "concrete evidence", so this (MST) is an appeal to faith. A sort of tug at heart strings from "people who know".

In any case, that's my take. And it (MST) is totally unpersuasive to me. It's sort of like hearing someone bearing testimony that the earth is really flat. I'm sure it will "move" many, but to be quite frank, I could probably muster up more energy for a cup of cafe latte than reading about "the people who know".

Now I'm anxiously awaiting another MST. Muslim Scholars Testify.

I wonder how that will go down with Mormons?