Nowhere here did I accuse of any of these people, as a group, of being driven by hate, malice, or of being guilty of horrendous moral sins.

Still waiting for some clarification from Kevin as to Don Bradley's perception of the Church as to its core understanding of itself as the authorized Kingdom of God on earth, the core doctrines of which are true and not open to modification and alteration through human intellection.

Graham's probably on the phone with Bradley right at this moment screaming, "Don, what do I tell them? Gimme a break, man!"

Just seconds after admitting he doesn't have any insight into the mind of apostates, Droopy makes this proclamation:



See what I mean? Funny how no one else shares in Loran's psychoanalysis.

No one who actually knows me would ever spew such nonsense, but Loran does it because he has an ax to grind and needs to poison the well as much as he can. Even those who have never met me know this is pure nonsense. Do you think for a second that LDS scholars would be initiating communications with me if they thought Loran's judgment had an inkling of truth to it? This is a favorite tactic among apologists. In reality, Loran hates me for the simple fact that I've actually taken the time to make him look rather stupid, revealing what an ignoramus and hypocrite he really is, and I've done so for years on a number of topics. He takes that personally. Likewise, he has passed similar judgments against others who he calls apostate or others he suspects of apostasy (i.e. Brooks, Bokovoy) . Just look at how he is trying to force words in my mouth about Don's sincerity as a true believing Mormon. He's trying to fish for information so he can then turn it against Don, maybe in hopes that such a revelation to MAD would bring him back into their good graces.

For the record, Don has never said anything to me that would lead me to believe he didn't really believe the Church were true. Ever. He may have said something about believing the Book of Abraham wasn't a true history, but he has never said anything about that to me, and frankly I don't care. I'm not really interested in Don's level of devotion to the Church. That's something personal to him and none of my business.

My point, which should have been clear to anyone with elementary level comprehension skills, is that Don doesn't approach apostates with the same mindset as Loran does. And this is probably because he can relate to much of what we experience. Loran pretends he doesn't judge, but then in the next breath goes on a long winded rant about how deep seated hatred and an internal struggle against knowledge of what's really true is the driving factor in my apostasy. It is the same boilerplate explanation offered by the Church about apostates in general. His evidence? None. It is just one of those stupid, unsupported rants that he likes to repeat to himself for his own satisfaction.

Given that Kevin said nothing about Don's perceptions about such things, why should he clarify? Don never said he had any issues. No one did. You apparently misread Kevin's post.

Where is this coming from, Loran? No one in this thread has said anything about Don having some issues or troubles with the church. Just you.

Jesus, you're daft. As someone who left the Church, yes, Don had similar experiences, at the time of his apostasy. Those experiences give him unique insight into what other apostates are going through, what drives them, etc, which was my point. But Don has since returned to the Church, and nothing I have said "implied" that Don still has problems with the Church.

I don't know what problems led him out of the Church at the time of his apostasy. I never asked him. He has spoken to me in the past about his conversion back into the Church and I never once challenged him or tried to convince him his experience was anything less than genuinely spiritual. I was happy to accept that he was happy in the Church, and left it at that. As I said, I concede that the Church serves a good purpose for a number of people. Don happens to be one of them and I have no desire to ruin it for them.

This of course, runs contrary to your caricature of me as the hateful apostate.

No, you're just riding to the rescue, squirting ink.

Standard circling of the wagons (of which there is no doubt, because if Don was a clear and unambiguous member of the apologetics movement, you and Kevin wouldn't defend him if it was the last thing you ever did on this earth. Does Kevin defend me, Wade, Will Gee, Rhodes, Peterson, Nibley, etc? This tells me that Don holds some importance for people like you and Graham who remain outside the church as perennial critics as a kind of iconic figure who can stand within the church but at the same time in some sense assuage the conscience of critics outside it by lending support to their core motives. I don't know what it is, but I do know that Don seems to hold an unusual place within LDS intellectual circles regarding that which he represents to critics of it.

His close relationship to Graham - one of the most hostile, visceral, and deeply alienated apostate critics in modern history, at least on the Internet, while he seems distant from, say, Book of Abraham apologetics, is interesting, to say the least.


This is an odd place to stand, and that's all I'm trying to get at. Kevin seems to have fled the field of battle, so we'll have to see what he comes up with).

I've "fled" nothing ****. I responded twice now, eleven and three minutes ago.

You just keep making a fool of yourself.

Please don't call Jesus names.




As you know him fairly well, I wonder if you could elucidate, to the best of your knowledge, what Don's views at the present time are on the church's core truth claims regarding the Book of Abraham; that it is the translation of an authentic ancient text, that the original autograph was written by Abraham himself, and that as a translated text, it has no relation per se to the 19th century?

What part of "I do not know and I do not care" do you not understand?

What part of "it isn't my place nor is it any of my business" do you not understand?

If you want to know the answers to these personal questions, I suggest you PM Don and ask him yourself.

I could go back to the MDDB archives and pull up hundreds, if not thousands of vicious, obnoxious, hateful, bigoted, mean-spirited, vile, persona attacks, put-downs, and character smears against literally everyone Kevin has ever disagreed with in the apologetic community over a number of years. I could write a book filled with nothing but Graham's spleen venting against individual defenders of the Church.

The very fact that this individual can come here and lie in public with a vengence about the the manner in which he has presented himself in public and behaved in public for many years now is indicative of exactly the deep psychopathology that drives this individual and animates the style and manner in which he argues his cases (which, for the most part, is composed, not of argument, but of ad hominem smarm and breast beating regarding his own intellectual eminence and self importance).

A divine comedy indeed.

I'm alienated by whom??

If any of this were true, would I be the one who was invited to participate on the most popular pro-Mormon forum, the same one that threw you out?

Would I be contacted by respected LDS scholars, out of the blue (the same ones who think you're an embarrassment to Mormonism)?



Who has lied, and about what? All you do is blather one stupid assertion after another, claiming you could document them if you wanted to.

Your inability to achieve basic comprehension is hardly evidence that I've lied. No one on this forum interpreted my comments the way you chose to interpret them, and that's probably because unlike you, Runtu is an educated guy who has a stranglehold on the English language.

Now that your little theory about me hyperventilating in retreat over something I never said, has been completely shot out of the water, you're back to the usual spin move. You know, wash, rinse, repeat. That's par for the course.

Why are you fine apostate chaps bothering to converse with Droopy? Heck, I have him on ignore because I realized that feeding the troll wasn't a good thing. He needs the attention and will stay composed so long as you feed him. But ignore him and watch him go nuts. Then he can retreat and start writing silly poetry and come back drunk and start badmouthing and foaming at the mouth like a junk yard dog. That's the Droopy that intertains us. Droopy craves attention. Don't give it to him. Starve him to death!

I can't see you Droopy!



Paul O

I'll highlight the important words for you.

yes

I knew you'd run away with your proverbial tail between your proverbial legs with that question, Kevin. Which is why I asked it. You know what Hauglid thinks about this issue, and I'm sure you know what Don thinks. Its been your bread and butter for years, and I highly doubt it would not have come up, and extensively, in your continuing relationship with him. You've long attacked me, Wade, and others with your name dropping of "LDS scholars" who come to sit at your feet to receive morsels of wisdom. OK, as you are an enemy of the Church, and don't believe or accept virtually any of its core truth claims, we must wonder why "LDS" scholars would be making any common cause with you at all. Its a fair question. Tell us then,l who these LDS Scholars are, and on what points important to apologetic they agree with you and your viewpoints.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHoPYLQvnQM



They're not personal, or you wouldn't have been name dropping and implying scholarly support for your own views from within the apologetic community for the last couple of years and basking in the glow of all the alleged LDS scholars who think defending the Church's position on the BofA is a lost cause.

Don't bother, just pull the lever that controls the slot machine in your head and look for the cherries.

Again, I never characterized all apostates as hateful, vile, or driven by venal motives. I think Kevin is because I have long experience with him and that's the way he has presented himself and treated others for a number of years, but that in his case, not all. There are what I would call established "patterns of apostasy," in the church, and long well known. For a general articulation of them, I would point you to the parable of the sower.

Not by whom, but from what.



My major criticism of the MDD board (and I can tell you that I'm hardly alone in this) is that it has ceased, to a substantial degree, to be an apologetic discussion forum and has become deeply Sunstoneized, to the point that someone like you could be invited there and allowed to break board rules with impunity (per David Bokovoy). The reason is that there are people in the leadership at FAIR who actually agree with some of your views, and are hostile to those of traditional defenders of the Book of Abraham.

They also like your politics, and despise mine.





You have lied that you are not driven by hate and bigotry, which, by the fruits we know you by, is utterly preposterous.



This was about you, not Don Bradley.



And so, what is Don's present perspective on the Book of Abraham?

Apostasy is actually rewarding. Droopy knows it, and it eats him alive.