Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

Everything posted by smac97

  1. Satan does have some power. Consider this excerpt from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism: The phrase "power of the devil" is referenced 7 times in the Book of Mormon, and once in the Doctrine & Covenants. Consider Hugh Nibley: Thanks, -Smac
  2. "Nothing will die..." - John's Mum. Yes. Beautiful. Here's the scene: I've previously cited a few other cinematic references that tap into the collective wisdom we have, deep in our heart of hearts, that this is not all that there is, that there is more, and that our relationships do, or at least can survive death. Thanks, -Smac
  3. All the more contemptible, then, to disparage a man's reputation over a triviality. -Smac
  4. I don't see it that way. When you throw around public accusations that the 1993 letter is fraudulent, and when that letter is addressed to Brent Hall, it's fairly foreseeable that others might take that as an accusation against . . . Brent Hall. Strange, then, that you publicly declared it to be fraudulent. That's fair, of course. Pointing out an academic error is not an attack on the individual's character or reputation. Publicly accusations of deliberate fraud, on the other hand... Well, now you are accusing them of misconduct. That seems . . . unnec
  5. No, because it is vague and unfocused it amounts to accusing everyone involved. And because the Ogden fax has been publicly circulating for years, with Brent Hall's name on it, necessarily impugns Brent (who, if the document was fraudulent, would have an obligation to correct the record - particularly given the number of fellow church members who assume its authenticity). Thanks, -Smac
  6. Well, not really. You said: "That leaves the first Watson letter." I'm not particularly interested in either. They aren't prophetic announcements. They aren't binding on my or anyone else. They are interesting. Peripheral. Secondary sources of information. I am more interested in objecting to your baseless disparagement of Brent Hall's good name. You have. You absolutely have. Right. The 1993 document bespeaks its own fraud. But the 1990 letter doesn't. Arbitrary. Ad hoc. Yes, I think I am. I take baseless attacks on the characte
  7. Here's a link to the email exchange I had with Brent Hall regarding the 1993 letter. While Bob "Don't call me disingenuous or dishonest" / "there's little freaking probability that I will continue to have dialogue with a person who calls me dishonest, disingenuous" Crockett will likely continue to falsely characterize me as an anonymous poster, and while he will likely continue to characterize anything I say or provide as "unsupported or unreliable," and while he will likely continue to characterize me personally as "not a reliable source" and "inherently unreliable," and while he has "{l
  8. And yet you don't require it. You accept the authenticity of the Watson letter without it. An affidavit from the bishop (and/or Watson) would also be helpful, yet you don't require those, either. Your standards of "admissibility" seem selective and ad hoc. And yet you presume it to be authentic, while declaring the Ogden letter a fraud. And you have been coy for a while now about who it is that you think committed the fraud. You have asserted that the Ogden letter is a fraud, but you are refusing to substantiate that accusation. Who committed the fraud? Wh
  9. If you are merely appropriating this thread to assert disbelief in the Book of Mormon, I guess I would understand. Otherwise, though, I'm not sure I follow. By this reasoning, the river connecting Utah Lake to Great Salt Lake doesn't exist, either. Everyone knows that the real Jordan River is in the Middle East. It is simply not possible for devout religionists to appropriate a place name from a sacred text and attach it to a separate place in their environs. Or not. We have places in Utah like Bountiful, Lamoni, Lehi, Manti, Moroni, Nephi, and place names in other states like
  10. It is as susceptible to baseless allegations of fraud as the Ogden letter. Expectations are not evidence. The Watson document is on a mere piece of paper. We don't know who it is really from. Someone could have simply fabricated it from a prior letter form sent from the office. Wow. This is easy! The Watson form is missing certain items, such as the envelope. The Watson form is from a secretary. And you haven't lifted a finger to send an email to ask him. I did, though. And I have the emails to prove it, but you have and preemptively dec
  11. it’s not a common thing in my association. I was never feted at a party for any of my priesthood ordinations, nor have we done so for any of our sons. Same here. I've never participated in such a thing, nor even heard of it. Grandparents and immediate family may be invited to a priesthood ordination, but that's about as far as it goes. Thanks, -Smac
  12. This board is a mishmash. There are some high-quality discussions that go on, but a lot of petty bickering too. Frankly, this board has been around long enough that we are well into re-runs. More often than not, when a substantive topic comes up, I just pull up previous threads from the board's archive and post links to them. We've hashed out most of the controversial topics, some many times over. Consider, for example, the "discussion" (such as it is) about two letters pertaining to the location of the Hill Cumorah. Here are some threads in which this has been discussed in the p
  13. All I've asked is that you not baselessly accuse Brent Hall of fraud. In public. But whatever. Right. I'm a purveyor of falsehoods. Ironic coming from someone who just protested having integrity questioned. Asking you to not publicly accuse another member of the Church of fraud is bullying? -Smac
  14. Nobody is "insisting" any such thing. This is just a message board. Also, it's Brent Hall. I have dozens of emails sent to and from Brent Hall at the email address I used. And the emails each have a little jpg of Brent's face next to his email address. Why would I lie about this stuff, Bob? Why would I join in a conspiracy about such a trivial matter? Are you sure? What if FAIR is in on the scam too? I'm not anonymous. And I've been hear since 2004, and I've racked up 11,800+ posts. I'm not an unknown quantity. Thanks, -Smac
  15. I am not an anonymous source. My full name is in literally every single post on this board. Take a look: Moreover, I've been on this board since 2004, and have racked up 11,800+ posts. I am not really an unknown quantity on this board. Then email Brent Hall and ask him yourself. Refraining from baselessly accusing another person of fraud in public is not a matter of political correctness. It's a matter of basic decorum and civility. You want it for yourself, and that's fine. I'm just asking that you do the same in your characterization of others. P
  16. I would ask that you not publicly accuse Brent Hall of fraud, particularly when you have done so based on almost nothing but pure speculation, and when you have failed to do something as simple as send him an email and ask him. I don't post anonymously. And nobody is asking you to "rely on statements on internet boards." You could contact Brent Hall and ask him. I'll check with him and see if FAIR is interested. Thanks, -Smac
  17. Yes, I still have the email exchange (it happened just a few hours ago). I'd probably want to redact my email address and Brent's. Thanks, -Smac
  18. If both letters are "enigmatic," then how much probative weight should they carry? Well, I agree with that. Sounds good so far. A good catch. If that is the case, then FAIR citing her position "without reference" doesn't really seem to be a problem. The point is not in dispute. Fair enough. The letter on its face says it is from Carla Ogden. I suspect Hamblin erred (as did others who followed him, such as Roper) in referencing Watson when it should have been Ogden. Mistakes happen. This seems pretty far afield from evidence of "fraud."
  19. I don't think I have gone out of bounds. I'm critiquing your position, that's all. Again, I am not your enemy. Well, not quite. You also spoke of the "conclusion that the fax is a fraud." Again, we aren't in court. Again, I think the accuser has the obligation to substantiate the accusation. You haven't done that. Again, you seem to be dismissing the authentication of the fax/letter by Brent Hall. Again, you seem to be not requiring similar authentication of the 1990 letter. Again, you are not addressing the incompatibility of your assertion (that the Ch
  20. I think you are unduly harsh to several posters here including me. Well, okay. I have not impugned your character. I have objected to your IMO inappropriate public accusation of fraud. You publicly characterized the 1993 fax/letter as fraudulent. Fraud. It's right there in blue and white. Affirmative fraud, too. You are saying that someone at FARMS deliberately and calculatedly fabricated the 1993 fax/letter. Brent Hall would certainly be implicated in such an accusation since his name is right there in the letter (and since he has now authenticated the letter in an e
  21. Any port in a storm, I guess. In a discussion differentiating possibilities from probabilities, speculation of this sort doesn't hold up well. Way too many 200-year-old evidentiary ducks to line up in a row. Here's a quick perusal of the premises (stated and unstated) that seem to be required for the theory in the Dialogue article to work. 1. The Histoire Générale des Voyages, ou Nouvelle Collection de Toutes lesRelations de Voyages, edited by Antoine Francois Prévost d’Exile, Nouvelle Édition, a set of 16 volumes, was published in 1748 by Chez Didot (from fn. 157 of the Dialog
  22. Have you published your paper anywhere? I would be interested in reading it. Well, as long as we are analogizing legal principles (like "equal dignity"), fraud as an allegation has nine elements, each of which must be proven with "clear and convincing evidence." I don't think you've done that here. A few thoughts/questions: 1. We aren't in a court of law, so I'm not sure the procedural formalities for accumulating and submitting evidence to a judge in a formal legal dispute are going to be observed in relation to a 30-year-old fax received by a FARMS staffer about a spec
  • Create New...