DCP "Apologizes" for Anti-Strangite Writings

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 7817
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am

DCP "Apologizes" for Anti-Strangite Writings

Post by Doctor Scratch »

Boy, the past few days in Mopologetics have been mighty interesting. First, we have DCP melting down on "Sic et Non" over his perception that he's been accused of "hating" on others' religious beliefs. He evidently felt it was so important to get the message out that (per a reliable "informant") he also posted a link on Facebook to his "Sic et Non" entry. But this seems to have backfired. Just take a look at this comment:
John Hajicek wrote:Daniel: I don't often criticise you, but this new curriculum vitae doesn't mention your bigoted writings on James Strang. I am a member of the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" at Voree, Wisconsin, which settled there in 1835 and stayed there in 1844 when Joseph Smith was killed. We are the last 19th century church still identifying as Mormons, since your church has disavowed that they are Mormons. There are enough unkind things in your article on James Strang to make you one of the more purposefully hateful and deliberately aspersion-casting anti-Mormons writing today about Mormon witnesses.

Nearly every unquoted fact in your article (on James Strang) was factually inaccurate, and the rest of the article was a carefully orchestrated collection of anti-Mormon quotes designed to malign a minority Mormon and the witnesses to his scriptures. Your writing in-between the fake facts and mean-spirited quotes has subtle differences from your writing on Joseph Smith, such as writing "James Strang started his own sect." You don't write that way about Joseph Smith or Brigham Young. Imagine reading one-sided hit-piece in this language about Joseph Smith and his witnesses, in a modern newspaper.

You spent so much effort to attack a minority faith, a faith so small it probably seemed harmless to you. Political correctness says do not bully large minorities -- but small minorities can still be bullied because they are defenseless.

There is so much more to be said about Brigham Young than you can say about James Strang.

https://www.deseret.com/2011/6/9/203732 ... d-his-sect
Hajicek, by the way, is in intriguing and mercurial figure: he refers to himself, on his website, as "a sort of “Indiana Jones” of American religious history, always on a quest to discover some legendary relic said to be sacred." He also maintains the site, "Mormonism.com," and he is evidently enough of an authority that he was cited more than once by the SL Trib after the Church paid $35 million for the printer's MS of the Book of Mormon.

Well, what does one do when the Indiana Jones of American Religious History accuses you of "bigoted writings on James Strang"? See for yourself:
Daniel Peterson wrote:I'm sorry that you so disliked the article, John Hajicek. I relied, in writing it, on the best scholarship that I knew. Incidentally, I bear absolutely no ill will toward your group. My purpose in writing the article was to defend my own beliefs. If any civil rights violations or bullying or violence resulted from my column, you have my apologies. I intended nothing of the sort.
Why does he always refer to people by their full names like that? In any case, there is sort of an apology here: if "civil rights violations or bullying or violence" happened, then he's sorry. If it was mere offense though? Then Hajicek, presumably, can blow it out his ass. And the conversation goes on:
Hajicek wrote:Daniel Peterson, at first this looked like an apology, and then I realized it was not. I could write a worse article about Brigham Young, or even Joseph Smith, for that matter, if I picked and chose the worst quotes from scholars and put them all into one article. Your facts are wrong, dates are wrong, other numbers are wrong, and you say things like "James Strang started his own sect" when you would never say "Joseph Smith started his own sect." You would never write about racist Oliver, unstable Martin, or the apostate Whitmers the way you do the witnesses of Strang's plates. You would wince if someone wrote about your witnesses the way you write about mine.
Peterson wrote:I didn't pick "the worst quotes from scholars," John Hajicek. I went to the best scholars of whom I was aware and chose passages that were relevant to my point. That's it. There was absolutely no malice. I don't even have any special INTEREST in your group. I was making an argument about something else. I understand that you're angry with me. I'm sorry about that. And, of course, if there is better scholarship of which I should be aware, I'll have a look at it before I write on the topic again -- which I may or may not ever do.
To be honest, this seems a lot more sincere and authentic. *This* I can understand: it's a scholar who did his best, but still managed to piss people off. He's sorry that he angered some of the readership, and, if he revisits the topic later, he pledges to do better. All fine and good, right? Except that Hajicek isn't buying it:
John Hajicek wrote:[T]here is plenty of original material in scholarly and research libraries. Dan quoted from sources who were contemporaries (and friends) of Fawn Brodie, to put it into perspective. Strang doesn't have a BYU to refute all the falsehoods from people like Dan quoting a 1930 Milo Quaife, and I don't have time, either. You can out [sic] together a pile of quotes from scholarly books against any important Mormon figure. He did it as a one-sided hit job. I mean, how did he write an entire article about the 11 witnesses Strang had, without ever quoting from one of their two joint testimonials or many private testimonials? Yet, he relies on rumor and hearsay. And he wrote the whole article without a mention of the witnesses who stayed faithful to Strang to the end, more notably than any of the three did for Joseph. And for what purpose was the [sic] Dan's deception? Proving the Book of Mormon true, by deceit? Whatever it is, it reads to a member exactly like an anti-Mormon article. Like, why attack Joseph Smith with a one-sided hit piece about the Book of Mormon witnesses? You'd say that was hate. And his facts are just wrong with dates and numbers. It grates like when someone says "John Smith's first edition of the Book of Mormon was 625 pages long and was printed in 1832, and he invented his own cult with cardinals and priests." Aren't we better than that?
DCP wrote:"Deception," John Hajicek? "A one-sided hit job"? You're being quite unjust.
Very interesting! You have to wonder if the Mopologists are suffering from selective memories. Speaking of memories, I was reminded of a related thread authored by the invaluable commentator "Tom," on a very similar subject. It's worth pointing out that this also attracted the attention of Jeremy Runnells, of "CES Letter" notoriety.

When you take all of this into account, it's no wonder that Moksha and Dr. Shades were banned. This whole notion--i.e., that the Mopologists are disrespectful to others' faith--has metastasized into a full-blown, legitimate issue. I wonder: How does the "new" Maxwell Institute publicly feel about others' faith traditions and claims? If they take others' claims and beliefs seriously, does that mean--per the Mopologists--that they're allowing "uncontested slam-dunks"?
"[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

User avatar
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 6358
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am

Re: DCP "Apologizes" for Anti-Strangite Writings

Post by Philo Sofee »

Excellent find! Peterson is flat out lying. All he could ever write was "hit jobs." Hajicek destroys Peterson and Peterson knows he is had. Everything he wrote for FARMS was an attack on others' faith and religion. Peterson can't lie any more credibly than Donald Trump.
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."

User avatar
Dr Exiled
God
Posts: 3360
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 9:48 pm

Re: DCP "Apologizes" for Anti-Strangite Writings

Post by Dr Exiled »

Cassius U rises to new heights with this post. My hope is for my son to be able to gain admittance into such a prestigious institution and study under the tutelage of such incredible scholars.
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen 

User avatar
Dr Moore
Endowed Chair of Historical Innovation
Posts: 706
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2019 11:19 pm

Re: DCP "Apologizes" for Anti-Strangite Writings

Post by Dr Moore »

Doctor Scratch wrote: Very interesting! You have to wonder if the Mopologists are suffering from selective memories.
Bingo.

In this worthy cause, the only thing worth remembering is the diligent defense of the Kingdom. Everything else is fodder to that aim. No worth remembering than an individual bullet in WW2, or a syllable in an epic rap battle. It can't possibly be a "one-sided hit piece" if the thing being "hit" is hardly a whisp, wholly treated with apathy in committed memory.

Dan isn't lying -- he just doesn't give a damn about Hajicek or his feelings. And he never would, except for the fact that Hajicek calls him to the floor, points out that Dan's writing is functionally no different from a hateful one-sided hit piece.

Complete the sentence:

You're being quite unjust by demanding fairness and accountability.

------------------

Incidentally, have a look at the following private exchange between DCP and myself, on April 23 after I called him out publicly for his horrifically bad faith, as evidenced by daily violations of his good word to "pretty much ignore MormonDiscussions.com" as per our private settlement of the very public/failed $10,000 Interpreter donation deal.
Dr. Moore: Again, you're trying to excuse your unwillingness to ignore MormonDiscussions.com in your blog, as promised, by renegotiating the terms of the deal. Whatever is written at MormonDiscussions.com, by anyone, is irrelevant to whether or not you are obliged to keep your word. At least, that is how honest people think. I don't know what morality you believe excuses you from keeping your word, but the double standard, professor, is all yours. (And as for smug, self-righteous superiority, what beautiful alliteration to describe the trio of you at Sic et Non when interacting with those of lesser "faith")

Daniel Peterson: You’re being quite unjust.
I don’t imagine that you’ll take up my offer, but I would be perfectly willing to meet you face to face when and if that’s ever possible.
I heartily dislike the demonization that so often occurs in social media.
(bold mine)

So that's the pattern. Great find, Scratch.

Dan has been attempting precisely the same blame shifting on me for over 6 months now. He continues to rail against MormonDiscussions.com almost daily -- violating the contract and his good word, then I call him out for blatant bad faith on his promise, and he throws a tantrum to protest that the fault is on ME for being "quite unjust."

Ahem!

If people are calling attention to the same problem, maybe consider that a signal? That the fault does, in fact, lie with you, sir. It isn't some twisted contrary indicator to continue cashing that blank check, doing and saying whatever "defends at all hazards" without a care in the world for collateral damage. Then to scream and protest when called to account for actions that harm or deceive... doesn't come off as very enlightened.

Do the brethren endorse this strategy? Do BYU administrators?

User avatar
Analytics
God
Posts: 4172
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 3:24 pm

Re: DCP "Apologizes" for Anti-Strangite Writings

Post by Analytics »

I thought this rationalization was interesting. "My purpose in writing the article was to defend my own beliefs."

This rationalization used to be more common and apologists would justify their nastiness because it is perfectly right and good to take the gloves off when you are defending your own beliefs, however, it is morally wrong to offensively attack somebody else's belief, even if your criticisms are sincere, well informed, and offered in a polite tone.

It seems that he thinks that while it is wrong for others to take the offense against his beliefs, it is right for him to take the offense against others; because his offense isn't really offense, it is really just the best defense.
Last edited by Analytics on Wed Jun 24, 2020 10:28 am, edited 2 times in total.
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.

-Yuval Noah Harari

User avatar
Dr Exiled
God
Posts: 3360
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 9:48 pm

Re: DCP "Apologizes" for Anti-Strangite Writings

Post by Dr Exiled »

Dr. Moore asks about the apologetic strategy employed by DCP and his gang:

"Do the brethren endorse this strategy? Do BYU administrators?"

I think at least some used to from Maxwell's no layups speech and perhaps some still do from Holand's approval of no layups in his Maxwell institute speech that Midge paraded around.

One wonders if it works in keeping more faithful in or whether it turns off more, pushing them out? Or perhaps as in my case, the defense lawyer/political hack tactics they are forced to use only confirms the emptiness of the church's claims. My opinion is that if one has the truth, one doesn't need to be nasty in its defense. Nastiness over the years, accusing the "enemies" of doing what you are doing in order to deflect, comes from desperation most of the time. They don't have good defenses so they resort to these tactics, proving their weak case over and over again.
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen 

I have a question
God
Posts: 9631
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 2:01 am

Re: DCP "Apologizes" for Anti-Strangite Writings

Post by I have a question »

There is no apology from Peterson, nor is there any acceptance of responsibility. There never is. It’s just everybody else’s fault for taking offence and now people are being unjust towards him by not giving his spiteful bilious writings about others a free pass. Not only does he expect a double standard when it comes to writing mean things, he demands it.

How much longer before the Deseret News reaches the same conclusion the Maxwell Institute came to 8 years ago?

User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 7817
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am

Re: DCP "Apologizes" for Anti-Strangite Writings

Post by Doctor Scratch »

Dr. Peterson has issued a response:
DCP wrote:I simply chose passages that were relevant to my point — which was focused on defending the claims of the Book of Mormon Witnesses — from reputable scholars on the subject.

Of course, if there is better scholarship on James Jesse Strang of which I should be aware, I’ll be sure to have a look at it before I write on the topic again — which, honestly, I may or may not ever do. Of academic disputes, obviously, there is no end.

What most fascinates me, though, is the fact that my little column above is now being described as “bigoted,” “a hit job,” “unkind,” “purposely hateful,” “carefully orchestrated,” “designed to malign,” “mean-spirited,” a “one-sided hit piece,” “deceit,” “bilious,” “a one-sided hit job,” “deception,” “disrespectful,” “bullying,” “lying,” an act of “hate,” “spiteful,” “mean,” “nasty,” “desperate,” using the “tactics” of a “political hack,” and a perfect illustration of how I “just [don’t] give a damn” about “collateral damage” or the “feelings” of others.
(emphasis added)

It's okay to cherry-pick quotes that attack another's beliefs, I guess, if that's your intention all along?
"[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

I have a question
God
Posts: 9631
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 2:01 am

Re: DCP "Apologizes" for Anti-Strangite Writings

Post by I have a question »

But there's nothing to be done, except to studiously ignore them.
Here

He just can’t help himself

User avatar
Gadianton
Hermit
Posts: 9699
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm

Re: DCP "Apologizes" for Anti-Strangite Writings

Post by Gadianton »

"Do the brethren endorse this strategy? Do BYU administrators?"

The Brethren care only about money, and certainly they don't care if anti-Mormons get their feelings hurt. They don't even care if the faithful get hurt, if that hurt is necessary to secure the next dime in income.

Where the brethren might end up having issues is in controlling the narrative as it relates to their image. Certainly, while they don't care about a soul outside of friends and family, they want to look as if they do. As the senior tier become farther removed from the centrality of the Church-BYU military-industrial complex, their chances of a hurt image are pretty slim. With good-ole Lou and Kiwi57, the chances are next to zero. The visibility of the Proprietor could be a problem, but at this point, somebody would really have to push the issue I think before anybody in Salt Lake City would step in.

I think they are lucky that Dr. Colvin appears to be letting this go. I think the disinformation campaign hosted at Sic et Non to cover up the boundaries crossed by Lou, which are available in the public record at Dr. Colvin's blog, could be somewhat serious if she wished to pursue it.
FARMS refuted:

"...supporters of Billy Meier still point to the very clear photos of Pleiadian beam ships flying over his farm. They argue that for the photos to be fakes, we have to believe that a one-armed man who had no knowledge of Photoshop or other digital photography programs could have made such realistic photos and films..." -- D. R. Prothero

User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 21210
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:02 am

Re: DCP "Apologizes" for Anti-Strangite Writings

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

Had Mr. Peterson ever sincerely apologized for a misstep? Like. A genuine mea culpa, and 'I'm going to fix' this apology? I'm not saying he hasn't, but over the twenty-odd years I've been aware of him (19 years an ex-mo this month, yay!), I can't recall him ever showing contriteness and humility.

- Doc

User avatar
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 6358
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am

Re: DCP "Apologizes" for Anti-Strangite Writings

Post by Philo Sofee »

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Wed Jun 24, 2020 5:04 pm
Had Mr. Peterson ever sincerely apologized for a misstep? Like. A genuine mea culpa, and 'I'm going to fix' this apology? I'm not saying he hasn't, but over the twenty-odd years I've been aware of him (19 years an ex-mo this month, yay!), I can't recall him ever showing contriteness and humility.

- Doc
No, there has never been contriteness of humility. It's not in the program of Momonism from within. They are already gods here on earth, just not perfect ones, but they imagine their system is perfect, and that perfection of the system blankets them now. They are mortally perfect on their way to celestial perfect. Perfect has no reason to apologize or invoke and involve humility. They want GLORY.......here, now. Anytime they defend their system, again no matter how classlessly, they are receiving celestial flowers of glory on their spiritual heads, and so, in their eyes, there is no wrong way to denigrate other "apostate beliefs, which is every single other religion on the planet in their eyes. Only THEY are the special chosen and have the ONLY authority of God. Therefore they are always correct. Q E D. Can anyone ever, anytime or anywhere imagine Mormonism admitting that the authority of God is in any other religion anywhere in the universe? You know they wouldn't.
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."

User avatar
Dr Moore
Endowed Chair of Historical Innovation
Posts: 706
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2019 11:19 pm

Re: DCP "Apologizes" for Anti-Strangite Writings

Post by Dr Moore »

Why is it too much to ask that the purportedly one true church be capable of earning and retaining members solely on the basis of its inherent goodness? Through its self evident wellspring of positive outcomes for people, families, communities?

User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 21210
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:02 am

Re: DCP "Apologizes" for Anti-Strangite Writings

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

Anyone able to guess what Mr. Peterson’s new’ish obsession with equating this board to Qanon is?

“Ex-LDS QAnon”.

That’s a 4chan thing, no? Is Daniel Peterson a frequent visitor to 4chan? Is he a downlow alt-righter?

- Doc

User avatar
Gadianton
Hermit
Posts: 9699
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm

Re: DCP "Apologizes" for Anti-Strangite Writings

Post by Gadianton »

Looks like this came up nearly a decade ago at MormonDiscussions.com:

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/52 ... es/page/3/

Mortal Man drops a real zinger in response to Pahoran's desperate spin-doctoring, and Pahoran finds himself paralyzed, and unable to respond.

There appear to be several biographies of Strang, and the one by Milo Quaife that Peterson relies on is quite old; it's on the same level as E.D. Howe's Mormonism Unveiled. Basically, this is "Anti-lit", and Peterson is taking upon himself the role of a professional debunker. Notice how he's merely lifting the harshest summaries of Strang from his book to shock his audience, and expects everyone to accept them at face value.

If you check out Mortal Man's comment on MormonDiscussions.com, I think you'll see why the apologists are so desperate to attack Strange and his followers. Strang's story offers a deathblow to the credibility of the Mormon witnesses.
FARMS refuted:

"...supporters of Billy Meier still point to the very clear photos of Pleiadian beam ships flying over his farm. They argue that for the photos to be fakes, we have to believe that a one-armed man who had no knowledge of Photoshop or other digital photography programs could have made such realistic photos and films..." -- D. R. Prothero

User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 7817
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am

Re: DCP "Apologizes" for Anti-Strangite Writings

Post by Doctor Scratch »

Excellent point, Dean Robbers. I wonder: do you remember Gus Van Sant's remake of Psycho? He intended it as a shot-for-shot remake of the Hitchcock original. It was sort of a dumb idea, but then again, it says something about replication or copying. Might it be interesting to remake "Witnesses," and just swap out the names? How different--overall--would the basic story be? And if the Strangites made such a film, would the Mopologists make fun of it?
"[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

I have a question
God
Posts: 9631
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 2:01 am

Re: DCP "Apologizes" for Anti-Strangite Writings

Post by I have a question »

Unlike the golden plates used by Smith to produce the Book of Mormon, the existence of Strang's plates was verified by independent, non-Mormon witnesses, including Christopher Latham Sholes, inventor of the first practical typewriter. Strang was accused of having fabricated the plates from a brass tea kettle, a claim which he and his partisans vigorously denied. The plates disappeared around 1900, and their current whereabouts are unknown.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voree_plates

One assumes those believers of Joseph Smiths family and close friends witnesses are equally supportive of the validity of the claims of authenticity of the Voree Plates?

User avatar
Tator
God
Posts: 3085
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 3:15 am

Re: DCP "Apologizes" for Anti-Strangite Writings

Post by Tator »

I'm sure Ditto Copy Pasterson has achieved the status of "Second Anoited" and I attribute this to his thinking he is some kind of a "god" here on earth here and now. This allows him to lie, degrade, slur and plagiarize over and over with no repercussions from all the Mormon low lives that only have the basic "god in embryo" anointing. It will take the big 15 cheeses in Salt Lake City to stop the dupe pasterson, not sure the 15 or DNews have the brains or honesty to come clean.
aka Pokatator joined Oct 26, 2006 and permanently banned from MAD Nov 6, 2006
"Stop being such a damned coward and use your real name to own your position."
"That's what he gets for posting in his own name."
2 different threads same day 2 hours apart Yohoo Bat 12/1/2015

Tom
Savior (resurrected)
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:45 am

Re: DCP "Apologizes" for Anti-Strangite Writings

Post by Tom »

The Sic et Non proprietor recently made this claim about his Deseret News article: "I relied on the two best books I could find on the subject. . . . I accurately reported what they said."

Did he?

First, here is the Sic et Non proprietor's report of Quaife's evaluation of Strang:
“We can hardly escape the conclusion,” writes Quaife, “that Strang knowingly fabricated and planted them for the purpose of duping his credulous followers”; and, accordingly, that “Strang’s prophetic career was a false and impudent imposture."
Here is the fuller context of Quaife's evaluation:
It is quite conceivable that Strang's angelic visitations may had only a subjective existence in the brain of the man who reported them. But the metallic plates possessed a very material objective reality; and we can hardly escape the conclusion either that Strang knowingly fabricated and "planted" them for the purpose of duping his credulous followers, or that they were what they purport to have been, ancient records divinely preserved, in the discovery and translation of which Strang was divinely guided. If the former alternative be accepted, it follows that Strang's prophetic career was a false and impudent imposture; if the latter be the true one, we are confronted by the sad fact that of all the people now on earth only a few score at the most have comprehended it.
Why did the Sic et Non proprietor omit the word "either" in his quotation from Quaife and fail to mention the second half of Quaife's conclusion?

User avatar
Gadianton
Hermit
Posts: 9699
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm

Re: DCP "Apologizes" for Anti-Strangite Writings

Post by Gadianton »

Thank you Tom! What a cold and calculating edit to the text!
FARMS refuted:

"...supporters of Billy Meier still point to the very clear photos of Pleiadian beam ships flying over his farm. They argue that for the photos to be fakes, we have to believe that a one-armed man who had no knowledge of Photoshop or other digital photography programs could have made such realistic photos and films..." -- D. R. Prothero

User avatar
Dr Moore
Endowed Chair of Historical Innovation
Posts: 706
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2019 11:19 pm

Re: DCP "Apologizes" for Anti-Strangite Writings

Post by Dr Moore »

With almost no effort, one could likewise quote B.H. Roberts or even Gordon B. Hinckley, simply by eliminating "either" and leaving off the affirmative part.

Post Reply