It is currently Wed Aug 20, 2014 3:41 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 121 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: USU78 Descends into Utter Insanity
PostPosted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 10:24 pm 
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 9:44 am
Posts: 6521
Location: Cassius University
Simon Belmont wrote:
Doctor Scratch wrote:
I don't think so. If you weren't "paranoid," you'd be far more willing to post using your IRL name,


That has nothing to do with paranoia, unless you are "paranoid" too. You have never revealed your IRL name, and I do not imagine you ever will.


What does it have to do with, then? Genuine fear? You claim to have the absolute truth of the Lord's Light on your side. Some courage that offers you, eh? I'll point out yet again what a striking contrast you provide in comparison with Will Schryver, Wade Englund, Tim Tribe, Blair Hodges, Josh Skains, and countless other apologists who post using their real names.

You obviously don't have the same gumption as these posters. And I'll freely admit that I don't want my life destroyed by the apologists: you yourself admit later in your post that people who dare to criticize the Church deserve to have their lives ruined.

Quote:
Quote:
ala DCP, Mike Ash, Hamblin, Schryver, Wade Englund, etc., etc., etc. The fact that you've clung so tenaciously to your pseudonym is enormously revealing in terms of your paranoia, actually.


Is it? What about the fact that you've clung so tenaciously to yours?


Two things: I promised my wife I wouldn't expose her/us to the viciousness of TBMs (this was her request, entirely aside from me saying anything whatsoever about Mormonism or Mopologetics. She made this request *years* ago); and I know for a fact that LDS apologists have engaged in focused efforts to destroy critics' lives.

Quote:
Quote:
I'll simply point out that no critic I'm aware of has ever engaged in the wholesale interference in people's lives that's summed up by, say, Louis Midgley's assault on the Tanners,


The Tanners shouldn't have become anti-Mormons if they didn't want to be ridiculed by LDS Scholars. It is very simple.


Nice to see your justification for the Mopologists' behavior. Does that make you feel warm and fuzzy inside?

Quote:
Quote:
or John Tvedtnes's attempt to interfere with Thomas Murphy's tenure proceedings,


Murphy produced dishonest materials towards the Church which cast the Book of Mormon in a bad light. If he did not want people to ridicule him or question his academic dishonesty, he shouldn't have produced what he produced. See how simple this is?


Okay. CFR. What did he produce that was "dishonest"? Can you back this up? How would you feel if I forwarded your remarks to Murphy? Or to your boss at [deleted]?

Quote:
Quote:
Plus, LDS paranoia is evident in many other facets of the Church, perhaps most noticeably in the secret temple ceremony and the secret Church finances.


Another teaching that apostates just do not understand. No wonder you left. The temple ceremonies aren't "secret," any worth member can participate.


Where did I say that I "left"? And watch your distortions there, Mr. IT @ Stamford.

Quote:
Quote:
No. You're distorting the evidence, Simon Skains.


Sorry. I am not. You say this every time you get backed into a corner by me, Scratch Skains.


And what "corner" is that, Simon? Feel free to elaborate.

Quote:
Quote:
The prove it.


I don't care that much. I only care about the fact that you loathe apologetics for the very same behavior that you imitate here.


I'm having a little trouble following your logic... Are you saying that I should "shut up" because the apologists are behaving deplorably, and you think I'm imitating them? Is that the gist of your argument?

Quote:
Quote:
I disagree with Joseph's methods, and with a lot of his posts. He's clumsy.


No, Scratch. He's a d***a**. Just say it. He really, truly, is a d***a**.


Oh, I think Joseph has all kinds of problems. But to be frank, I think he's said many, many more intelligent things here than you have. Compared to you, Joseph is a veritable Einstein.

Quote:
Quote:
Yes--I agree. That *is* a gem. I guess you play by the "rules" established by the LDS Church?


I play by the known rules of whatever event I am taking place in. I do not simply make up "my own rules" each time, like you do.


Actually, you *do* play by invented rules. Even now you're violating the rules of the LDS Church. There is no way that any right-minded bishop or SP would approve of what you've been doing on this board, Simon. Your blood-curdling foul language, your cyber-stalking of Joseph; your lying and Lord knows what else. You're putting your family's eternal salvation in jeopardy with your posting.

Quote:
Quote:
That's a "gem," too, and I don't deny it. How could I, when I'm singling in on acts of his that are undeniably evil? Is it "derogatory" to point out that Dr. Peterson has engaged in a smear campaign against D. Michael Quinn? Why, *yes*, it is!


So, again, we see that you believe that it is "evil" for LDS Apologists to behave exactly like you behave here.


Huh? How do you figure? Where have I ever engaged in a "smear" on someone's established academic expertise? Quinn was a Mormon historian and the apologists did everything they could to undermine him. Now, if I was attacking DCP's Islam credentials, or Hamblin's history credentials, you might have a point. But I've never done that. I've left these guys' livelihoods alone.

Quote:
And what about D. Michael Quinn... why do you always defend him? You don't even know him.


How do you know?

_________________
"[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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: USU78 Descends into Utter Insanity
PostPosted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 10:45 pm 
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 9:44 am
Posts: 6521
Location: Cassius University
Okay, I'm compelled to weigh in again here. I am just floored by some of Simon's remarks here. Just look at this:

Simon Belmont wrote:
Murphy produced dishonest materials towards the Church which cast the Book of Mormon in a bad light. If he did not want people to ridicule him or question his academic dishonesty, he shouldn't have produced what he produced. See how simple this is?


Is there any better illustration of the Mopologetic thirst for revenge? I don't think so. Critics who think that Mormon apologists are decent or reasonable people should think again.

_________________
"[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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: USU78 Descends into Utter Insanity
PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 6:48 am 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 3:00 pm
Posts: 13735
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
Doctor Scratch wrote:
And yes: I realize that you're going to say, "Well, hey! Look at you!" I'll simply point out that no critic I'm aware of has ever engaged in the wholesale interference in people's lives that's summed up by, say, Louis Midgley's assault on the Tanners, or John Tvedtnes's attempt to interfere with Thomas Murphy's tenure proceedings, or Louis Midgley's attempts to have Meldrum's book pulled from the shelves of Deseret Book.


You have hit the nail on the head here. This is the crime of Mopologetics in a nutshell. It is the dirty tricks campaigns against people who exercise their freedom of speech in our free Republic that I deplore. These attacks are both unchristian and un-American. And for Simon to sit there pontificating as though he stood on any higher ground while he levels baseless attacks on Brent Metcalfe, one of the most kind and civil of the unbelieving scholars of things Mormon, is absolutely astonishing.

Simon, you have zero credibility. You are nothing more than the 21st century version of the "whistling and whittling" brigade, except that you have come out of Nauvoo to harass anyone you can find and label as your "enemy."

You really ought to be ashamed of yourself, Simon. But, of course, you will not be. Instead you will continue your campaign to harass those who express their opinions about the Church while defending those Mopologists who have sought to cause them real harm. Any person who can attack Brent Metcalfe, while defending certain actions of Louis Midgley, John Tvedtnes, and Bill Hamblin, really needs his head examined. Earth to Simon: these are the hired hands of a multi-billion dollar corporation that clearly tends to the secretive and paranoiac. Your white-knight pose is a farce.

Simon, I don't hate these guys, but I won't defend Louis Midgley's temper tantrums, the Meldrum affair, Tvedtnes' interference with Murphy's job, or Hamblin's sophomoric pranks against his perceived enemies tarted up in pseudo-scholarly guise. I am sure they love their families and pets. No doubt they put their pants on like the rest of us. But, Simon, this behavior is frankly sick in the head. It makes a church that tries to be accepted by the larger Christian community look like the cousin of Scientology.

_________________
The Electronic Journal of Jaredite Studies
The Definitive Electronic Jaredite Bibliography

"I don't profess to be such a Prophet as were Joseph Smith and Daniel; but I am a Yankee guesser." ~Brigham Young


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: USU78 Descends into Utter Insanity
PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:24 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 5:45 am
Posts: 7512
Location: somewhere else
Kishkumen wrote:
Doctor Scratch wrote:
And yes: I realize that you're going to say, "Well, hey! Look at you!" I'll simply point out that no critic I'm aware of has ever engaged in the wholesale interference in people's lives that's summed up by, say, Louis Midgley's assault on the Tanners, or John Tvedtnes's attempt to interfere with Thomas Murphy's tenure proceedings, or Louis Midgley's attempts to have Meldrum's book pulled from the shelves of Deseret Book.


You have hit the nail on the head here. This is the crime of Mopologetics in a nutshell. It is the dirty tricks campaigns against people who exercise their freedom of speech in our free Republic that I deplore. These attacks are both unchristian and un-American. And for Simon to sit there pontificating as though he stood on any higher ground while he levels baseless attacks on Brent Metcalfe, one of the most kind and civil of the unbelieving scholars of things Mormon, is absolutely astonishing.

Simon, you have zero credibility. You are nothing more than the 21st century version of the "whistling and whittling" brigade, except that you have come out of Nauvoo to harass anyone you can find and label as your "enemy."

You really ought to be ashamed of yourself, Simon. But, of course, you will not be. Instead you will continue your campaign to harass those who express their opinions about the Church while defending those Mopologists who have sought to cause them real harm. Any person who can attack Brent Metcalfe, while defending certain actions of Louis Midgley, John Tvedtnes, and Bill Hamblin, really needs his head examined. Earth to Simon: these are the hired hands of a multi-billion dollar corporation that clearly tends to the secretive and paranoiac. Your white-knight pose is a farce.

Simon, I don't hate these guys, but I won't defend Louis Midgley's temper tantrums, the Meldrum affair, Tvedtnes' interference with Murphy's job, or Hamblin's sophomoric pranks against his perceived enemies tarted up in pseudo-scholarly guise. I am sure they love their families and pets. No doubt they put their pants on like the rest of us. But, Simon, this behavior is frankly sick in the head. It makes a church that tries to be accepted by the larger Christian community look like the cousin of Scientology.


And to go further even, they are an insult to Mormonism: its history, ideals and vision. Whatever I think of the church, I think it deserves a far better "defense" than this...

_________________
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: USU78 Descends into Utter Insanity
PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 3:59 pm 
Doctor Scratch wrote:
And I'll freely admit that I don't want my life destroyed by the apologists.


Okay... well logic dictates here that you should never have attempted to engage apologists, and you should have let the LDS people worship how they want to worship without criticism. I do not want to risk my life destroyed by jumping off a cliff, so I have chosen not to engage in that activity. See how simple this is?

Quote:
Two things: I promised my wife I wouldn't expose her/us to the viciousness of TBMs (this was her request, entirely aside from me saying anything whatsoever about Mormonism or Mopologetics. She made this request *years* ago); and I know for a fact that LDS apologists have engaged in focused efforts to destroy critics' lives.


Likewise, Critics have engaged in focused attacks to destroy the Church. If this did not happen first, there would be no apologists today. It is easy enough to discover who you are, being an IT person, but I haven't and wouldn't engage in any negative activity towards you in real life. This is just a message board.

Quote:
Nice to see your justification for the Mopologists' behavior. Does that make you feel warm and fuzzy inside?


As warm and fuzzy as it makes the Tanners feel that they've spent the majority of their lives trying to destroy an institution that millions hold dear. Now, there's a noble pursuit, huh?

Quote:
Okay. CFR. What did he produce that was "dishonest"? Can you back this up?


The DNA thing never amounted to anything. He and Metcalfe were so sure it would mean the end of the Book of Mormon as real history, but what came of it? Nothing.

Quote:
How would you feel if I forwarded your remarks to Murphy?


I wouldn't care, he's a liar, along with Metcalfe. "Simon Belmont" can say whatever to whomever.

Quote:
Or to your boss at [deleted]?


Since you don't know who that is, nor does anyone called "Simon Belmont" work there, you'd just be seen as another spammer. Then I'd get a call about the e-mail filtering system not working.

Quote:
Where did I say that I "left"? And watch your distortions there, Mr. IT @ Stamford.


What does that have to do with me working at the hospital?

Quote:

And what "corner" is that, Simon? Feel free to elaborate.


You chicken out of almost every thread I confront you on.

Quote:
I'm having a little trouble following your logic... Are you saying that I should "shut up" because the apologists are behaving deplorably, and you think I'm imitating them? Is that the gist of your argument?


This is very simple:

Critics criticize the church, then apologists defend it. Take away the critics, take away you, and there would be no need for apologetics. How many times do we have to go over this?

Quote:
Oh, I think Joseph has all kinds of problems. But to be frank, I think he's said many, many more intelligent things here than you have. Compared to you, Joseph is a veritable Einstein.


Well, you can say what you like, but at least I am no bigot.

Quote:
Actually, you *do* play by invented rules. Even now you're violating the rules of the LDS Church. There is no way that any right-minded bishop or SP would approve of what you've been doing on this board, Simon. Your blood-curdling foul language, your cyber-stalking of Joseph; your lying and Lord knows what else. You're putting your family's eternal salvation in jeopardy with your posting.


No, I'm not.

Quote:
Huh? How do you figure? Where have I ever engaged in a "smear" on someone's established academic expertise?


The poster known as Changed.

Quote:
Quinn was a Mormon historian and the apologists did everything they could to undermine him.


Yup, because he became a critic.

Quote:
Now, if I was attacking DCP's Islam credentials, or Hamblin's history credentials, you might have a point. But I've never done that. I've left these guys' livelihoods alone.


You've attacked everything about them. I've read through your history here. You are evil, and you have the audacity to call apologists evil.

Quote:
How do you know?


Unless you are him.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: USU78 Descends into Utter Insanity
PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 4:25 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 5:45 am
Posts: 7512
Location: somewhere else
Simon Belmont wrote:

Quote:
Quinn was a Mormon historian and the apologists did everything they could to undermine him.


Yup, because he became a critic.


What? Do you even know anything about Quinn or his work? He is a believing Mormon still.

Simon Belmont wrote:
Quote:
How do you know?


Unless you are him.


How can anyone possibly take you seriously Simon when you write stuff like this? If you are seriously claiming that the only way you can "know" someone is to "be" that person---then what does that say about all you supposedly know about Joseph Smith, Jesus Christ, God and Brent Metcalf?

_________________
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: USU78 Descends into Utter Insanity
PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 4:27 pm 
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 9:44 am
Posts: 6521
Location: Cassius University
Simon Belmont wrote:
Likewise, Critics have engaged in focused attacks to destroy the Church. If this did not happen first, there would be no apologists today.


That's not really true. It's reasonable to cite Nibley as being the first real "Mopologist" and one of the main reasons he emerged is because of problems inherent to the Book of Abraham. The Book of Abraham's history really has very little to do with critics. It has even less to do with the sort of attack-oriented Mopologetics that's represented by DCP's smears, or Nibley's verbal assaults, or Tvedtnes's attempts and discrediting, etc.


Quote:
Quote:
Okay. CFR. What did he produce that was "dishonest"? Can you back this up?


The DNA thing never amounted to anything. He and Metcalfe were so sure it would mean the end of the Book of Mormon as real history, but what came of it? Nothing.


Huh? Is that the best you've got? You said *dishonest*. I'm sure that even you understand the difference between "speculation" and "dishonesty."

Quote:
Quote:
How would you feel if I forwarded your remarks to Murphy?


I wouldn't care, he's a liar, along with Metcalfe. "Simon Belmont" can say whatever to whomever.


Meaning... What? That you're afraid to put your name to your "Simon Belmont" remarks?

Quote:
Quote:
Or to your boss at [deleted]?


Since you don't know who that is, nor does anyone called "Simon Belmont" work there, you'd just be seen as another spammer. Then I'd get a call about the e-mail filtering system not working.


How hard do you think it is to figure it out? How hard do you think it is to make a phone call?

Quote:
Quote:

And what "corner" is that, Simon? Feel free to elaborate.


You chicken out of almost every thread I confront you on.


You don't "confront," Simon. You're not capable of it. You squeal and complain and recite, but you don't "confront."

Quote:
Quote:
Actually, you *do* play by invented rules. Even now you're violating the rules of the LDS Church. There is no way that any right-minded bishop or SP would approve of what you've been doing on this board, Simon. Your blood-curdling foul language, your cyber-stalking of Joseph; your lying and Lord knows what else. You're putting your family's eternal salvation in jeopardy with your posting.


No, I'm not.


You and I both know that's not true. You've traduced innocent people on this thread.

Quote:
Quote:
Huh? How do you figure? Where have I ever engaged in a "smear" on someone's established academic expertise?


The poster known as Changed.


I don't think so, Simon. I don't even know what her specific academic expertise *is*. IIRC, I had a problem with her getting used as cannon fodder for DCP's personal war against critics.

Quote:
Quote:
Quinn was a Mormon historian and the apologists did everything they could to undermine him.


Yup, because he became a critic.


A critic of what? The Mopologists? He's still a believer, FWIW.


Quote:
You are evil


ROFL!

Quote:
Quote:
How do you know?


Unless you are him.


Yes, maybe, Simon. Maybe.

_________________
"[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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: USU78 Descends into Utter Insanity
PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 6:41 pm 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 3:00 pm
Posts: 13735
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
Blixa wrote:
And to go further even, they are an insult to Mormonism: its history, ideals and vision. Whatever I think of the church, I think it deserves a far better "defense" than this...


It is a huge slap in the face to the millions of good people who have genuinely embraced Mormonism's finest ideals. Anyone who does not find the Mopologetic "defense" of the Church offensive urgently needs a course correction. Let's face it, Mormon apologetics, lacking real depth, sophistication, and, most critically, genuine spirituality, has become a bankrupt enterprise. It is the proverbial band aid applied to the dying faith of good LDS people. These folks are starving for real spiritual sustenance. Mopologetics is the sand stuffed in the mouth of the starving man.

_________________
The Electronic Journal of Jaredite Studies
The Definitive Electronic Jaredite Bibliography

"I don't profess to be such a Prophet as were Joseph Smith and Daniel; but I am a Yankee guesser." ~Brigham Young


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: USU78 Descends into Utter Insanity
PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 10:31 pm 
Simon Belmont wrote:
Likewise, Critics have engaged in focused attacks to destroy the Church. If this did not happen first, there would be no apologists today.


Scratch wrote:
That's not really true. It's reasonable to cite Nibley as being the first real "Mopologist" and one of the main reasons he emerged is because of problems inherent to the Book of Abraham.


He was given the task of studying it, yes. Whom did he attack without first being attacked? Not the Tanners; they attacked first. Modern apologetics began as largely a response to them.

Quote:
The Book of Abraham's history really has very little to do with critics. It has even less to do with the sort of attack-oriented Mopologetics that's represented by DCP's smears, or Nibley's verbal assaults, or Tvedtnes's attempts and discrediting, etc.


Yes, and guess who started it? Critics.

SB wrote:
The DNA thing never amounted to anything. He and Metcalfe were so sure it would mean the end of the Book of Mormon as real history, but what came of it? Nothing.


Scratch wrote:
Huh?


Yes, as your constant huh's represent, you are perpetually confused.

Quote:
Is that the best you've got? You said *dishonest*. I'm sure that even you understand the difference between "speculation" and "dishonesty."


It isn't speculation. The research was dishonest. Metcalfe jumped right on that bandwagon and it proved nothing. That shows us that Metcalfe will jump on any bandwagon that seeks to discredit Mormonism.

Scratch wrote:
Meaning... What? That you're afraid to put your name to your "Simon Belmont" remarks?


Meaning that this is an Internet message board. It has no bearing on real life, and the two places should not cross each other.

SB wrote:
Since you don't know who that is, nor does anyone called "Simon Belmont" work there, you'd just be seen as another spammer. Then I'd get a call about the e-mail filtering system not working.


Scratch wrote:
How hard do you think it is to figure it out? How hard do you think it is to make a phone call?


Yeah, first of all people do not give out other people's names without verification of identity -- especially in the Information Technology industry where social engineering runs rampant.

Second, why attempt to threaten me? What purpose does it serve? I must really be pissing you off, Scratch, for you to lose your composure like this.

Scratch wrote:
You don't "confront," Simon. You're not capable of it. You squeal and complain and recite, but you don't "confront."


I call you on the carpet all the time for your mischaracterizations and misrepresentations, and each time you conveniently disappear from the thread.

Quote:
You and I both know that's not true. You've traduced innocent people on this thread.


I have spoken negatively about critics of the Church, just as they have spoken negatively of my church. Again, if they cannot handle the heat, they should not be in the kitchen.

Scratch wrote:
I don't think so, Simon. I don't even know what her specific academic expertise *is*.


Metallurgy, and you know it. Do not play dumb with me.

Quote:
IIRC, I had a problem with her getting used as cannon fodder for DCP's personal war against critics.


Well, since that didn't happen, and you were wrong, I expect you to apologize to DCP.

Quote:
A critic of what? The Mopologists? He's still a believer, FWIW.


Again, do not play dumb, Scratch. D. Michael Quinn has written negative material about the Church.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: USU78 Descends into Utter Insanity
PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 10:34 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 5:45 am
Posts: 7512
Location: somewhere else
Simon Belmont wrote:

Again, do not play dumb, Scratch. D. Michael Quinn has written negative material about the Church.


You don't know what in the hell you are talking about. Why don't you show us what you've actually read for a change instead of just repeating trash talk you've heard elsewhere.

_________________
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: USU78 Descends into Utter Insanity
PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 10:36 pm 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 3:00 pm
Posts: 13735
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
Blixa wrote:
Simon Belmont wrote:

Again, do not play dumb, Scratch. D. Michael Quinn has written negative material about the Church.


You don't know what in the hell you are talking about. Why don't you show us what you've actually read for a change instead of just repeating trash talk you've heard elsewhere.


The guy is a doofus.

_________________
The Electronic Journal of Jaredite Studies
The Definitive Electronic Jaredite Bibliography

"I don't profess to be such a Prophet as were Joseph Smith and Daniel; but I am a Yankee guesser." ~Brigham Young


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: USU78 Descends into Utter Insanity
PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 10:38 pm 
Simon Belmont wrote:
He was given the task of studying it, yes. Whom did he attack without first being attacked? Not the Tanners; they attacked first. Modern apologetics began as largely a response to them.


Oh, dear, dear Simon, how far and wide does your ignorance extend? To the very borders of the Flat Earth?

Quote:
Historian Daniel C. Peterson, chairman of the LDS apologetics group Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies at Brigham Young University, suggested the Tanners' willingness to debunk false documents regardless of their content was a sign of integrity:

"There are some anti-Mormons out there that I hold in contempt. They're demagogic. They spread hatred and strife and disharmony. I don't see the Tanners in that way."


Jerald and Sandra Tanner.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: USU78 Descends into Utter Insanity
PostPosted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 12:14 am 
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 9:44 am
Posts: 6521
Location: Cassius University
Simon Belmont wrote:
Scratch wrote:
That's not really true. It's reasonable to cite Nibley as being the first real "Mopologist" and one of the main reasons he emerged is because of problems inherent to the Book of Abraham.


He was given the task of studying it, yes.


So, he was appointed by the Brethren to engage in apologetics? Is that what you're saying?



Quote:
Scratch wrote:
Huh?


Yes, as your constant huh's represent, you are perpetually confused.


Please feel free to enlighten me.

Quote:
Quote:
Is that the best you've got? You said *dishonest*. I'm sure that even you understand the difference between "speculation" and "dishonesty."


It isn't speculation. The research was dishonest. Metcalfe jumped right on that bandwagon and it proved nothing. That shows us that Metcalfe will jump on any bandwagon that seeks to discredit Mormonism.


Are we talking about "dishonesty" here, Simon, or group identification?

Quote:
Scratch wrote:
Meaning... What? That you're afraid to put your name to your "Simon Belmont" remarks?


Meaning that this is an Internet message board. It has no bearing on real life, and the two places should not cross each other.


Oh? Then you're going to cease naming real-life people such as D. Michael Quinn and the Tanners?


Quote:
Scratch wrote:
How hard do you think it is to figure it out? How hard do you think it is to make a phone call?


Yeah, first of all people do not give out other people's names without verification of identity -- especially in the Information Technology industry where social engineering runs rampant.

Second, why attempt to threaten me? What purpose does it serve? I must really be pissing you off, Scratch, for you to lose your composure like this.


Calm down, Simon. You said that you were the IT Director at [deleted] in Stamford, CT. My point here was simply that it couldn't be that hard to figure out. This stands in pretty stark contrast to your claims that "no one can find out!" who you are.

Plus, you're dodging the basic issue here: if you have the Truth of the Church on your side, why do you need a pseudonym? You're one of the very few Mopologists who feels the need for a nom de guerre. That says something.

Quote:
Scratch wrote:
You don't "confront," Simon. You're not capable of it. You squeal and complain and recite, but you don't "confront."


I call you on the carpet all the time for your mischaracterizations and misrepresentations, and each time you conveniently disappear from the thread.


Oh, do you? Where? In what way have I "misrepresented"? Feel free to present a clearly laid-out case. Everyone here thinks you're incapable of putting together a cogent argument. Feel free to prove everyone wrong.

Quote:
Quote:
You and I both know that's not true. You've traduced innocent people on this thread.


I have spoken negatively about critics of the Church, just as they have spoken negatively of my church. Again, if they cannot handle the heat, they should not be in the kitchen.


A silly comment for a variety of reasons. The first of which is that Beastie utterly demolished you on the issue of whether or not the Church "negatively" depicts critics. The second problem is that you haven't demonstrated---not by a long shot--that Murphy, Metcalfe, Quinn, et al. have "spoken negatively" about "your" Church.

Quote:
Scratch wrote:
I don't think so, Simon. I don't even know what her specific academic expertise *is*.


Metallurgy, and you know it. Do not play dumb with me.


So cite my post where I attacked her abilities and qualifications as a metallurgist.

If you can't, you owe me an apology.

Quote:
Quote:
IIRC, I had a problem with her getting used as cannon fodder for DCP's personal war against critics.


Well, since that didn't happen, and you were wrong, I expect you to apologize to DCP.


Lol. Nope.

Quote:
Quote:
A critic of what? The Mopologists? He's still a believer, FWIW.


Again, do not play dumb, Scratch. D. Michael Quinn has written negative material about the Church.


But did he write un-truths?

_________________
"[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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: USU78 Descends into Utter Insanity
PostPosted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 8:34 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 3:23 am
Posts: 7137
Location: On the imaginary axis
Simon Belmont wrote:
Doctor Scratch wrote:
Oh, I'm not bluffing, Mr. Belmont. I really do have a list of 23 names. Whether or not this corresponds to your claims is another matter. For starters, the person listed as "Department Director" (and per this list, that is the actual title) is a woman. Can you name her? How about the Security Administrator? (Or is that you?) What about the Database Administrator? What's her name, Simon?

Unless you're a bald-faced liar, you should be able to name at least one of these people. Let the dodges and the excuses commence!


No, you do not have a list of any employees at the hospital (aside from medical personnel, which list is easy to get).

To your credit, I believe you have a list of 23 names, probably the names of all the voices in your head whom you endearingly refer to as "informants."


I was astonished to see from earlier posts on this thread that (while apparently wishing to remain anonymous) you had apparently stated what job you had and where. I though there might be some mistake (who would be so ill-advised as to do that?), so I searched back and found the series of posts from which I quote this. (It's the one about the CoJCoLDS registering large numbers of domain names). Here you claim that no-one could possibly see an online list of managers at [deleted].

You are right that the job of Director of IT does not appear on the [deleted] official website. But have you not heard of Google? I assure you on my word of honor that it is possible in a few seconds to get a list of 50 people in management at that hospital, amongst which are 8 with IT in their job titles, three of whom are at Director Level. Such lists are compiled by people who sell business contact information (I only saw the free version, but that is all that was needed to see names and job titles). You could say I am lying, of course.

How difficult is it, do you think, to guess at an obvious non-work affiliation to test against those names (again via Google)? One corresponds. I do of course have no intention of revealing this information (and of course that person may not be you), but you are clearly wrong about what you say above - that one cannot find the names of management personnel at your hospital online.

I am not an IT professional, and I only use my computer for the common purposes of life. But ANYBODY could do what I have done in less than a minute. If you are concerned to remain anonymous, what you have done does not seem a good idea at all. I strongly suggest you ask for all relevant references to be deleted if you wish to maintain your cover.

And of course you should stop telling Scratch that he can't know things that are easy for even a complete amateur like me to find out.

_________________
Christopher Ralph: The discovery that the creators of South Park place a higher value on historical authenticity than do the Brethren creates spiritual shock-waves from which some members never recover.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: USU78 Descends into Utter Insanity
PostPosted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 11:33 am 
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 9:44 am
Posts: 6521
Location: Cassius University
You've made some good points here, Chap. It presents a serious problem for Simon Belmont. I mean, think about it: Suppose someone here were to email [deleted]'s CIO/VP in order to tell him that their lead IT guy is fiddling around posting 25+ posts per day during work hours? Conversely, if Simon wasn't telling the truth about working there, then he told a bald-faced lie (to Liz, of all people), plus he's been dragging [deleted]'s good name through the mud.

It seems to me that his only option here is to come clean about everything. If he does work there, he needs to atone for his posting. If he doesn't work there, he owes Liz and others an apology for telling such a brazen and spectacular lie.

_________________
"[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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: USU78 Descends into Utter Insanity
PostPosted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 11:40 am 
Quote:
So, he was appointed by the Brethren to engage in apologetics? Is that what you're saying?


No, he was given the task of determining the message of the Joseph Smith Papyri. How is that apologetics?

Quote:

Are we talking about "dishonesty" here, Simon, or group identification?


We're talking about both. Thomas "the second Galileo" Murphy published untruths and shoddy science, and Metcalfe jumped right on board because he thought it might discredit Mormonism, which is he purpose in life apparently.

Quote:
Oh? Then you're going to cease naming real-life people such as D. Michael Quinn and the Tanners?


Quote:
Calm down, Simon. You said that you were the IT Director at [deleted] in Stamford, CT.


I am one of them, yes, but my name is not on the Internet. And you should be careful who you try to pull Internet Detective stuff on, because you might be attempting to defame a totally unrelated and innocent person. I am highly involved in the security sector and as such have specifically made it a point to not have my name anywhere, and it isn't.

Quote:
My point here was simply that it couldn't be that hard to figure out. This stands in pretty stark contrast to your claims that "no one can find out!" who you are.


It is true, no one can find out. However, that does not mean I am not willing to reveal the information to the right person.

Quote:
Oh, do you? Where? In what way have I "misrepresented"? Feel free to present a clearly laid-out case. Everyone here thinks you're incapable of putting together a cogent argument. Feel free to prove everyone wrong.



Everyone? I doubt that. You misrepresent DCP every time you post your attack threads about him. See the "changed" thread for an example.

Quote:
A silly comment for a variety of reasons. The first of which is that Beastie utterly demolished you on the issue of whether or not the Church "negatively" depicts critics.


Of course they negatively depict critics. They are critics! The LDS people should be allowed to worship whatever they want in peace, Scratch.

Quote:
The second problem is that you haven't demonstrated---not by a long shot--that Murphy, Metcalfe, Quinn, et al. have "spoken negatively" about "your" Church.


I suggest you read their material, then.

Quote:
So cite my post where I attacked her abilities and qualifications as a metallurgist.

If you can't, you owe me an apology.


Go read the "changed" thread.

Quote:
Lol. Nope.


Typical cowardice.

Quote:

But did he write un-truths?


Yup!


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: USU78 Descends into Utter Insanity
PostPosted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 11:50 am 
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 9:44 am
Posts: 6521
Location: Cassius University
Hey, Simon:

Kishkumen posted questions to you on another thread--questions you ignored. By any chance does this ring a bell?:

Quote:
“It’s not a difficult decision to give up football,” [...] “I have my God and my family. I’ll serve them first. Football is a lot of fun, but it’s not the most important thing.”

_________________
"[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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: USU78 Descends into Utter Insanity
PostPosted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 11:59 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 4:02 am
Posts: 5703
Hello,

I think people on both sides need to stop with the IRL threat-inuendos. It's nasty business, and it squelches dialogue.

V/R
Dr. Cam

_________________
http://www.strategycenter.net/doclib/20080107_coughlin_extremistjihad.pdf

www.cesletter.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: USU78 Descends into Utter Insanity
PostPosted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 12:20 pm 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 3:00 pm
Posts: 13735
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
Simon Belmont wrote:
No, he was given the task of determining the message of the Joseph Smith Papyri. How is that apologetics?


Simon, the church was taking a beating on the Book of Abraham. Nibley was called in to address the issue for that reason.

Simon Belmont wrote:
We're talking about both. Thomas "the second Galileo" Murphy published untruths and shoddy science, and Metcalfe jumped right on board because he thought it might discredit Mormonism, which is he purpose in life apparently.


Simon, most anyone without an LDS testimony is likely to side with the position that there wasn't an Israelite civilization in the Americas in antiquity. That is the case regardless of what someone feels regarding the LDS Church. Your assessment of Metcalfe's purpose in life is a bad joke, like most of the confused crap you post here.

Simon Belmont wrote:
Of course they negatively depict critics. They are critics! The LDS people should be allowed to worship whatever they want in peace, Scratch.


So your position is that Metcalfe and Quinn are actively seeking to deconvert Mormons?

Simon Belmont wrote:
I suggest you read their material, then.


Simon, stop being a bonehead. Writing academic history that does not support the agenda of the LDS Church today is not the same thing as attacking the LDS Church.

Simon Belmont wrote:
Typical cowardice.


Your comment is typical Simon Belmont stupidity. Refusing to apologize when one does not feel obliged to do so is not "cowardice." English is your first language?

_________________
The Electronic Journal of Jaredite Studies
The Definitive Electronic Jaredite Bibliography

"I don't profess to be such a Prophet as were Joseph Smith and Daniel; but I am a Yankee guesser." ~Brigham Young


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: USU78 Descends into Utter Insanity
PostPosted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 5:54 pm 
Hermit
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 10:12 pm
Posts: 5773
Location: Cave
Simon B wrote:
Really? According to whom? You? I am a lifelong member, and have seen no such paranoia and "deep need to control all facets of human society." You are making this up, pure and simple.


Those who read the dystopian sci-fi thriller, Enoch, sometime next year, will learn something about the Brethren's "Morwellian" inclinations. I hope you read it, Simon.

_________________
Elliot Sober: "Our current ignorance is no evidence for the truth of any explanation, creationist or otherwise."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: USU78 Descends into Utter Insanity
PostPosted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 7:18 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:42 pm
Posts: 13801
Location: Koloburbia
Quote:
Okay... well logic dictates here that you should never have attempted to engage apologists, and you should have let the LDS people worship how they want to worship without criticism. I do not want to risk my life destroyed by jumping off a cliff, so I have chosen not to engage in that activity. See how simple this is?


Wouldn't it be easier for apologists to refrain from any harmful and hateful behavior toward others. I sense this is an occasion to follow the lead of Jesus rather than Niccolo Machiavelli.

_________________
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 121 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bazooka, beastie, Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 19 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group