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.



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.



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



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 Stamford Hospital?



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



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



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?



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.



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.



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.



How do you know?

Okay, I'm compelled to weigh in again here. I am just floored by some of Simon's remarks here. Just look at this:



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.

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...

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?



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.



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?



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.



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



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.



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



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



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?



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



No, I'm not.



The poster known as Changed.



Yup, because he became a critic.



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.



Unless you are him.

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



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?

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.




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



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



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



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



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



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.



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




ROFL!



Yes, maybe, Simon. Maybe.

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.

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.



Yes, and guess who started it? Critics.





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



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.



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





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.



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



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



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



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.

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



Jerald and Sandra Tanner.

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





Please feel free to enlighten me.



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



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




Calm down, Simon. You said that you were the IT Director at Stamford Hospital 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.



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.



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.



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

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



Lol. Nope.



But did he write un-truths?

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 Stamford Hospital.

You are right that the job of Director of IT does not appear on the Stamford Hospital 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.

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 Stamford Hospital'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 Stamford Hospital'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.

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



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.



Yup!

Hey, Simon:

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

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

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



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.



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



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.



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?

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.

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.