Well said, mok.

I do not see a question there, Scratch. Do you?

Empty threats, from a little person attacking someone much more powerful than he.

You better be careful, lest you get someone totally unrelated and innocent in trouble -- you'd be doing worse deeds than the "mopologists."



I do not represent [deleted], Scratch. And, by the way, unless your name really is "Doctor Scratch" you are telling a "bald faced lie" every time you post here.



It seems to me that you've constructed yet another false dilemma. I will continue posting as I have, destroying your arguments at every corner, and teaching that the Love of Christ does not come through criticism.

And, by the way, as a techie, I have your IP address, along with everyone else's here. I could easily use it to determine who each of you are in real life -- but will I? No. Because I am honorable and would never stoop to the level you bring yourself to.

I suggest you cease making threats about real life identities. This is an Internet Message board, and one which purportedly encourages free speech. So, if you hold to those ideals let me see it.

Quite honestly, Simon, I am increasingly alarmed at your posts. You refuse to engage in discussion, will not answer questions, will not re-read and discuss arguments, and have now started making quasi-delusional statements about your superiority, divine duty and inability to be wrong.

I have asked you over and over to display some evidence that you have read the work you've attacked, or claim to know expertly. Now comes the statement I quoted above which makes me think you've not read the New Testament (Christ does not ever engage in criticism? Seriously?) and I was right to speculate that you are in thrall to an anti-intellectual fetish taboo about "criticism."

How might I "get someone" in trouble, Simon? You're the one racking up 25+ posts per day on company time.



You do if you're an employee there. You do if you go around claiming to work there.




What "threats," Simon? Are you really that paranoid and frightened? Look: I can lay all my cards on the table if you want. My concern here is simply that you seem to have peddled some falsehoods. And I think that people deserve to know about it.

There is no way to find out who I am, but because I bother you so much, you threatened to call [deleted] or e-mail someone there and say "your IT guy posts on Mormon Discussions." The first response would probably be laughter, but then I can imagine you pressing the issue and trying to get someone you do not even know in trouble. Since that person will definitely not be me, it would be a totally unrelated and innocent person. Only you would do such a thing, which is why you got suspended for rule 7 violations a while ago.



Sorry, I only represent myself here. I do not go around gloating about my employment -- you are the one who brings it up; I am just honest about it (unlike you).



This one, for example:




Well then, if "peddling some falsehoods" is such a crime, I expect you to begin posting under your real name, since "Doctor Scratch" is a "peddled falsehood," as is "Cassuis University." Do you know what else is a "peddled falsehood?"



So, perhaps you'd like to post some abstracts, Tom Smith?

I do not imagine I have any sort of divine duty, just that I have a personal mission here much like Scratch believes he has. The difference is, while Scratch attacks defenders of my faith, I take it one step further and attack the root of the problem -- criticism of my faith.

I am willing to engage in discussion and answer questions, of course. I apologize if that has not been the case as of recent, but I am traveling this week and have only had short spurts of time to post here while I am at my hotel room. I utilize this time in a very specific manner.



I am only an expert in things which interest me. I imagine that is true for all experts. Biased propaganda material that only supports one side of an argument does not interest me, but source material definitely does. So, while I have not read New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology, I am aware of the contents and bias it contains.



Did Jesus Christ publish books (scrolls?) which specifically attacked another faith? Did Jesus Christ stand outside of another faith's meeting place with sings declaring that those adherents would burn forever in hell? No. He said forgive them, for they know not what they do.

In other words, you've not read any Quinn (which is what I was asking about) and are going on reports you've heard about various books. Simon, this is really disappointing.



A couple of things here: I don't know of anyone on this board who protests outside of Conference. If you are really concerned about this, posting on this board is pretty wide of the mark.

Also, as I've tried to point out to you, you are conceiving of "criticism" in pretty limited terms. Whether or not Jesus published criticism on his blog, a great deal of his teachings are rooted in critique and criticism. Even that last sentence in your response (Forgive...) can be understood in terms of critique. But more than that, I'm wondering why you are not following His advice...

Where? Where did I say that I planned to do that? And why is it that you think that "there is no way" to find out who you are via a phone call or two? Or a series of emails? That just doesn't make sense, Simon. In fact, there are a lot of things about your story that don't add up. E.g., you at first claimed to be the IT director, only to later backpedal and admit that there are, in actuality, several people who hold the title of "director." Could it be that you were lying on the spot to Liz, and then going back to change your story when you had to? I noticed, too, on your Amplus Thread, that Sock Puppet asked you if you knew "David Taylor." You answered, "No," which in retrospect seems really strange, since "David Taylor" is the CIO and VP of [deleted]. At the very least, you'd know who he was.

So, were you lying? That certainly seems to be the case.



No, Simon---*you* were the one who brought it up.



There's a difference between laying out a hypothetical scenario vs. making a threat. But your paranoia has been duly noted.




Sure. I'll do that right after you post an abstract for one of your Joseph Smith articles.

P.s. Do you think I should include an entry for jskains on The Encyclopedia of Mopologetics?

P.p.s. Did that quote I posted ring any bells for you?

A few more things before I shut down interest altogether...



You deeply misunderstand Scratch, then. Scratch is engaged in a long-term and multi-vocal critique of bad Mormon apologetics. That is pretty much the entire scope of his gig. He is not targeting Mormonism as a faith, nor all Mormons who defend it or write about it. I've never seen him criticize Armand Mauss, for example.

In fact, outside of a few obvious posters here, a lot of the criticism on the board is aimed at the current institutional structure of Mormonism, or some of the recent pronouncements of its leaders. And there is much discussion of Mormonism's history, some from a secular and some from a religious viewpoint. And as I've told you before, I'm certainly not interested in whether you believe or not; I only care about the quality of arguments you make, something I thought you, too, would be interested in.

But with your stunted notion of "criticism" and ridiculous and insulting notion of "the general apostate," I don't know what more is possible. I understand and appreciate that you've only had time for brief responses, lately. Nevertheless, they seem to be taking on more of a problematic tone in their announcing of missions, invincibility and supreme knowledge. That line of talk doesn't just make me think I can't have a rational discussion, it scares me off.

And finally: I've been mulling over writing a separate thread on defining criticism/critique and the history of dissent in Mormonism. But the following remark:


is deeply disturbing. I know I addressed this upthread, but I can't get it out of mind. This is really intellectually reprehensible, Simon. It's also just plain dumb.

Quickly... I have about three minutes:

Blixa,


Why do you feel that it is "just plain dumb" to have not read Quinn?

I welcome the thread that you would start on criticism. I would be a positive contributor. Give me the chance.

It is just plain dumb to think you know what is in a book before you've read it--even if its edited by that arch-villain Brent Metcalf. That's what makes me think that writing such a thread would be gigantic waste of time. I tend to agree with honorentheos over on the Vision Version thread. You aren't really reading anyone's responses, you have a caricature of the "anti-mormon" that you are reacting to.

I also do think it is really dumb not to bother with Quinn. He is an unusually generous scholar. One distinctive thing about his work, and I've shown it to colleagues with no interest in Mormonism who agree with me on this, is its unprecedented level of intellectual generosity. His notes and bibliographies are gold mines and treasure stores. In other words he gives away material for others to pursue. He doesn't jealously guard his turf. He makes other work possible.

So, let me get this straight. Simon is essentially like those ministers who decried Monty Python's Life of Brian without ever having seen it? Simon has not read the works of these scholars of Mormonism that he decries as critics? What are we even talking to this bonehead for? Why would we take anything he says the least bit seriously? The man is ignorant of the things he criticizes. In my book he is no better than a Christian anti-Mormon who does not know the first thing about the LDS Church. To think that I wasted my time on this guy...

It is an intimidation tactic that you often use. It is part of the game that you play here, and it will not work on me.



If you think backpedaling is what I did, perhaps you should make yourself familiar with the term. I am an IT director.



Perhaps I gave you too much credit for knowing how organizations are, well, organized. You really should get out more.



Could it be that your whole persona here is one big giant fat lie? I think so, unless your name is "Doctor Scratch" and you work at "Cassius University" and you've published "75 articles." You are not allowed to call others liars when you are probably the largest one here.



Did I say that I did not know who he was? Before you answer, you might want to read the thread in question.



Here's a little exercise for you, Scratch. Go back and see if I ever stated that I lived in Stamford, before you told me I lived in Stamford. Go ahead... the answer may reveal more about you than you realize.



The only thing I brought up was that I was an IT guy. Then I said that [deleted] was really nice.



Your childish intimidation tactics are duly noted.



They aren't yet published. Yours are. There is a difference. Perhaps you'd like to remove the "75 articles published" bullcrap from your blog, then.



If you really think that jskains is an apologist who is a threat to you in some way, then go ahead.

Edit: I've been patiently awaiting mine for some time now. You are really slow! MST is beating you by leaps and bounds.



No, because there wasn't a question in it.

I am right here, Kishkumen. Why are you referring to me in the second person?

Do you honestly think that, because I have not read Quinn, that automatically means I have not read anything? Why don't you take a step back and try to find a post where I claimed that I was an expert on Quinn or his writings. I've read Metcalfe, Vogel, Tanners, Abanes, etc. Okay? Those are the authors I criticize.



Oh now, come on. Wasted your time? We have a lot in common, Kishkumen. There is hope for me yet.

Simon, an intellectually honest scholar, whether amateur or professional, criticizes works he has read. The fact that you go on about Quinn and Metcalfe, when you haven't even read their writings, is repellent. You really ought to be ashamed of yourself, and I am not joking in the least.

But I have read some of Metcalfe. Just not Quinn. I do not generally criticize Quinn, because I don't know much about his work.


Edit: To clarify, I have read Metcalfe/Vogle's American Apocrypha, but not New Approaches to the Book of Mormon. I have not read any Quinn.

So, are you saying that because you have read Metcalfe's posts, you have read Metcalfe? I mean, you admit that you did not read New Approaches. So what exactly have you read of Metcalfe's published writings?

Also, you have been pretty negative about Quinn, Simon. Don't pretend that you have not been criticizing the man.

See my edit above. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

To reiterate, I have read American Apocrypha, but not New Approaches, although the latter is sitting on my bookshelf, about the third in line to be read.

And I am hard on Quinn because I know a little about him, his methods, and his views on the Church.

That's pretty damned unimpressive, Simon, especially given the fact that you have been smearing Metcalfe for so long now. And your attitudes and beliefs about Quinn are indefensible given your complete lack of familiarity with his work. You would not let that kind of ignorance slide in an anti-Mormon. How hypocritical of you!

Woe betide the anti-Mormon who admits that he has read maybe one book about Joseph Smith and presumes to criticize "the Prophet"! Right? But here is Simon with his puny bibliography and suddenly he is an expert judge of the character and scholarship of these men. Stunningly appalling, Simon.