Grant Palmer

[Chris Smith]

(With the possible exception of Loftes Tryk.)

I think Introvigne may have argued that Tryk is an atheist, and didn't really believe all that stuff he wrote about the LDS Church being Satanic. (I could be wrong, though. It's been a while since I read Introvigne's piece, and I haven't actually read anything by Tryk.)

[the narrator]

A "fair comparison" only exists where the resemblance is actual and not merely contrived.

And since that is the point at dispute, you are engaged in question-begging.

Did you really not realise that? Oh dear.

But perhaps you are right; perhaps there really are no actual anti-Mormons. Anywhere. Perhaps the Tanners are a figment of our imagination. Perhaps Ed Decker doesn't really exist. Perhaps Loftes Tryk is a hoax. Perhaps nothing IRR publishes is intended to call into question the truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ. Perhaps Dr Ankerberg and Dr Dr Weldon are really stooges secretly in the employ of FARMS.

But then again, perhaps not. (With the possible exception of Loftes Tryk.)

The empirical evidence tells me that, even if we wanted to (and it has not been plausibly established that we would want to) we simply have no need to "create" anti-Mormons; they exist in their own right.

No such thing.

Still, perhaps your own argument applies to you; perhaps you feel a need to create and vilify an "other" in order to establish your own claims of pre-eminence. Is that it?

No. I was not.

I have already explained my position to you. You don't have to agree with it; you are at all times entitled to take issue with it, or any portion thereof. But it is not for you to tell me what my position is.

And it is the very height of arrogance for you to presume to try to do so.

It's an "unfair backlash" to call an anti-Mormon to account for a baseless accusation? Really?

Maybe someday you will know enough to make a worthwhile contribution to this forum. In the meantime, it would do you well to note that gratuitous name-calling is not acceptable here.

And even if my remarks were as you choose to characterise them -- they were not -- is that the best you've got? Remarks made on a message board that is entirely unaffiliated with FARMS or FAIR are somehow relevant to the nature of what is published by them?

How does that work, exactly?

So you expect me to accept, on faith, everything you choose to say about yourself -- but you refuse to acknowledge the rather uncontroversial fact that I own my own position?

One rule for you and another for me, because it suits you?

You must be a Gen-Y guy.

Well, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but it really isn't all about you. Sorry.

TLA: Three-letter acronym.

FCAN: Four-character alpha-numeric.

In which case, it's not your place to claim them as sharing your opinion, either.

Which is probably just as well. You see, The Narrator, the old claim that "FARMS-just-does-ad-hominem" is a canard. It is undiluted wastewater from a swine cleaning facility, and I recommend against you swallowing it any more.

I first saw it claimed by the Tanners, and have since seen it mechanically repeated by an increasingly unanimous herd of "independent thinkers." I have no doubt that Chris thinks you're a splendid fellow for helping to propagate one of his favourite memes, and so you probably achieved what you wanted.

In the meantime, no-one has ever managed to show that review essays in the FARMS Review, or indeed any other FARMS or FAIR publication, contain a higher proportion of ad hominem argumentation or "character assassination" than any other publication where controversial positions are discussed. To my knowledge, no-one has ever even tried.

The reviews of Palmer's book certainly did not. They addressed specific claims that Mister Palmer made about himself in order to boost his claimed standing as an "insider" to something. Showing those claims in their proper light was relevant to the book under review.

Just so you know.

Regards,

Pahoran

Brilliant. 1. In the same post that you deny that you create and vilify the Other, you call my friend Chris an anti-mormon. 2. I never said that FARMS just does ad hominem.

You're insults are tiresome.

I'm done with you.

[Chris Smith]

1. In the same post that you deny that you create and vilify the Other, you call my friend Chris an anti-mormon.

I'm not surprised to see Pahoran call me that, but I must admit I was a little surprised to see David Bokovoy apply that label to me earlier in the thread.

Oh, well. Such are the hazards of message boarding.

[Facsimile 3]

This thread is like the Jerry Springer Show. I want it to go away, but I have to pause and view the chair throwing fights as I change the channel.

Another example would be that of rubbernecking here and there to survey the damage.

[SeattleGrunge]

This thread is like the Jerry Springer Show. I want it to go away, but I have to pause and view the chair throwing fights as I change the channel.

Another example would be that of rubbernecking here and there to survey the damage.

Agreed! I don't think I've ever read 17 pages without posting on a topic that had no academic enhancement for me.

[David Bokovoy]

I'm not surprised to see Pahoran call me that, but I must admit I was a little surprised to see David Bokovoy apply that label to me earlier in the thread.

Oh, well. Such are the hazards of message boarding.

I don't recall doing that.

[David Bokovoy]

Oh, that's right. Here it is:

Thanks Chris. I appreciate our friendship as well and should have specified that in part, I found the comment so shocking, and hence humorous, because despite your anti-Mormon status, you clearly possess integrity.

For the record, however, I do feel that you not only over reacted to Dan's comments, but misrepresented his statements, so reading this thread, I fully sympathize with his frustration. Nevertheless, you've apologized and have as is usual tried to react kindly from here on out.

Best

This was back in the beginning before I had gotten too frustrated with you and was intended as a continuation of the light heartedness reflected in my original posts. Despite the fact that I disagree with the way you reacted to Dan's comment and the subsequent way you handled yourself on the other board after you had apologized, I did not then, nor do I now, consider you an anti-Mormon and I'm sorry that my comment was taken seriously.

[Chris Smith]

Ah, David, thanks for the clarification. I think Blair is right; we should all use smileys more often!

[Pahoran]

I think Introvigne may have argued that Tryk is an atheist, and didn't really believe all that stuff he wrote about the LDS Church being Satanic. (I could be wrong, though. It's been a while since I read Introvigne's piece, and I haven't actually read anything by Tryk.)

Really? That's interesting. I hadn't heard that, and it's not consistent with what little I do recall having read about him. Still, I suppose it could be true.

But the fact that you brought it up raises this question: does this mean that mentioning an author's background, ideological posture and/or intellectual history is not automatically an exercise in "character assassination" or something?

And if it's not, hasn't your case against FARMS just collapsed for lack of substance?

If so, I recommend you don't tell dblagent007 or The Narrator. I don't know how well either of them handles disappointment.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Hyrum Page]

I'm not surprised to see Pahoran call me that, but I must admit I was a little surprised to see David Bokovoy apply that label to me earlier in the thread.

I had no idea that you were such a FARMS/FAIR hater, Chris! I must have not been invited to your little club in which you devote your attention to running these apologetic organizations down with singleminded devotion.

How do you find time for all of your other projects... Oh, wait, are they also all about FARMS/FAIR hating in reality? You diabolical...

[Curtis Weber]

[Joseph Smith] is not currently involved in this or any other discussion of Mormonism on MA&D or MDB. Alleged behavior of his, which [actually] occurred many years ago, is not pertinent to a discussion of his published comments about Mormonism on these boards today. If someone questions his printed arguments or the nature of his book, then I am more than happy to see you or anyone else strenuously criticize the written product. I regard the public discussion of allegations against his behavior and character from actions that supposedly occurred years ago as unacceptable... regardless of their alleged truth or basis in fact.

Hrm. (oh, and the bracketed words above are mine, replacing "Grant Palmer" and "supposedly," respectively.) (And smiley now added to attempt to convey the good-natured humor and irony in which this post was intended!)

[Pahoran]

Brilliant. 1. In the same post that you deny that you create and vilify the Other, you call my friend Chris an anti-mormon.

Oh, he's your friend, is he?

Why didn't you say so?

After all, how could any friend of yours possibly oppose the truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ?

So the Chris Smith who proudly announced to us that he had written (or co-written) a paper that purported to show that one of our cherished books of Scripture was produced by a naturalistic and pseudoscholarly process must have been another Chris Smith, was he?

Or is it just a coincidence that Chris went digging into the Book of Abraham after anti-Mormon "ministries" such as IRR singled it out as a soft target?

2. I never said that FARMS just does ad hominem.

Nor did I say you said that.

You're insults are tiresome.

What "insults" are those?

I'm done with you.

Oh no! Another newbie with an ignore button!!

Regards,

Pahoran

[Hyrum Page]

Hrm. (oh, and the bracketed words above are mine, replacing "Grant Palmer" and "supposedly," respectively.) (And smiley now added to attempt to convey the good-natured humor and irony in which this post was intended!)

Curtis,

It may surprise you to learn that I am very sympathetic to this point of view. I happen to think that the character of Mormonism's first prophet has absolutely nothing to do with its viability as a religious system. To the contrary, I find it almost humorous that people seem to insist on his stellar character. Brigham Young made an excellent statement to a priest about how it did not matter whether Joseph Smith was a horse thief or an adulterer, because he taught the doctrine of salvation. In my opinion, this is a sane perspective with much to recommend it. Many a pointless apologetic could be avoided if Mormons were simply to embrace Brigham's wise statement.

Best,

Trevor

[Hyrum Page]

Oh, he's your friend, is he?

Ooooh. Damning. The narrator and Chris are friends. Why even have an argument, when this has been revealed?

[Pahoran]

Curtis,

It may surprise you to learn that I am very sympathetic to this point of view. I happen to think that the character of Mormonism's first prophet has absolutely nothing to do with its viability as a religious system. To the contrary, I find it almost humorous that people seem to insist on his stellar character. Brigham Young made an excellent statement to a priest about how it did not matter whether Joseph Smith was a horse thief or an adulterer, because he taught the doctrine of salvation. In my opinion, this is a sane perspective with much to recommend it. Many a pointless apologetic could be avoided if Mormons were simply to embrace Brigham's wise statement.

Best,

Trevor

Context please, best Trevor: you are aware, are you not, that Brigham hadn't even met Joseph at the time he said that, and had only just read the Book of Mormon for the first time?

And therefore his statement is in no wise evidence about Joseph's actual character?

Ooooh. Damning. The narrator and Chris are friends. Why even have an argument, when this has been revealed?

Clearly you cannot fault anything I actually said, since you need to so blatantly misrepresent my post.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mortal Man]

If you guys are determined to keep this thread going all the way until next Thursday then I have a request.

In order that we may all gain closure on this whole unfortunate episode, will somebody please post a photo (narrator, I'm looking in your direction here) of Dan and Chris sharing a tearful hug at Claremont? This could be followed by pictures of smiling happy people and root-beer cheers all around.

Then we can all breathe a sigh of relief and get back to our regular bickering.

[Pahoran]

Just in case we had forgotten, this is Chris's wonderful initial contribution to the thread:

Yes, and Brent Metcalfe stole the KEP microfilm for the Tanners when he worked at the Church archives as a security guard. And Charles Larson is a "failed high school teacher". You FARMS and FAIR folk have such a great track record when it comes to digging up dirt on perceived enemies of the Church.

You don't do yourselves any favors by repeating this kind of tripe.

A shotgun blast of hypocritical ad hominem.

And then he did a Rosannesque apology, but continued to stick it to Dan over at the sty.

But hey -- we mustn't say anything bad about that, because he's The Narrator's friend, don't you know.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Tarski]

Just in case we had forgotten, this is Chris's wonderful initial contribution to the thread:

A shotgun blast of hypocritical ad hominem.

And then he did a Rosannesque apology, but continued to stick it to Dan over at the sty.

But hey -- we mustn't say anything bad about that, because he's The Narrator's friend, don't you know.

Regards,

Pahoran

ad hominem is the fallacy of trying to prove a person argument is wrong by pointing out irrelevant negative facts about the person making the argument. To simply call someone on the carpet for what is preceieved to be bad belavior is not a case of ad hominemperceivedbehavior.

I also object to calling Chris hypocritical-- it misses the mark.

Tell me, what kind of friend requires that they must never be criticized or the friendship is off?

Chris is quite simply a good person and seems to me to be unusually loyal to the persuit of truth itself rather than just staking out ground as a loyal critic or a loyal apologist. He should be contrasted with you Pahoran. Your unconditional attack-dog loyality to prominant apologists and insulting and intellectually contentless attacks on anyone who dares question your ingroup is utterly predictable and repetative.

As for the apology, I can only note that quite a few big players here have to my knowledge seldom if ever mustered an apology for anything.

[Hyrum Page]

Context please, best Trevor: you are aware, are you not, that Brigham hadn't even met Joseph at the time he said that, and had only just read the Book of Mormon for the first time?

And therefore his statement is in no wise evidence about Joseph's actual character?

Pahoran,

I am going to assume that you were nodding when you read that, since you got it so terribly wrong. I know you are smarter than that. Really.

Why would you assume that I intended to use this to blacken Joseph Smith's character, when clearly my point was that his character ought not to be an issue? Did I suggest in any way that I thought, or that Brigham thought, Joseph Smith was a horse thief and an adulterer? Are you practicing your mind reading skills? If so, you really need a lot more practice.

All I said was that Brigham made what I thought was a wise observation about the relative importance of the prophet's individual character in the comparison with the value of what he taught. Does that help any?

Clearly you cannot fault anything I actually said, since you need to so blatantly misrepresent my post.

Clearly if I had found anything substantive enough to fault, I would have done something with it.

[Hyrum Page]

But hey -- we mustn't say anything bad about that, because he's The Narrator's friend, don't you know.

And whose friend are you, and how is that pertinent?

Regards,

Trevor

[Daniel Peterson]

As for the apology, I can only note that quite a few big players here have to my knowledge seldom if ever mustered an apology for anything.

This is a charge that's pretty routinely leveled against me, and I assume that I'm included in it again this time.

It seems that some of my critics have long memories and that they maintain very extensive lists of my high crimes, misdemeanors, and horrific offenses, for which they righteously demand that I apologize, and that my failure to obey their command represents yet another redundant example of my deeply flawed character.

Well, I'm not going to apologize on this occasion, either.

[Hyrum Page]

This is a charge that's pretty routinely leveled against me, and I assume that I'm included in it again this time.

It seems that some of my critics have long memories and that they maintain very extensive lists of my high crimes, misdemeanors, and horrific offenses, for which they righteously demand that I apologize, and that my failure to obey their command represents yet another redundant example of my deeply flawed character.

Well, I'm not going to apologize on this occasion, either.

And he didn't apologize when he knocked over my snow cone when I was last in Provo. There I was in the Albertsons parking lot. It was a hot day. Then suddenly, out of the corner of my eye, I saw an arm dart in and flip my snow cone out onto the blacktop. I heard him exclaim as he scurried out of sight, "Take that you critic, 'cause you won't choose the right!"

[Daniel Peterson]

Dang, I enjoyed doing that. Thanks for the memories!

[Hyrum Page]

Dang, I enjoyed doing that. Thanks for the memories!

Yeah, you FARMS guys are all the same. What a bunch of bullies. I still tear up when I think about it. It was a really tasty snow cone on a scorching summer's day. Jerk.

[Scott Lloyd]

Pahoran,

I am going to assume that you were nodding when you read that, since you got it so terribly wrong. I know you are smarter than that. Really.

Why would you assume that I intended to use this to blacken Joseph Smith's character, when clearly my point was that his character ought not to be an issue?

To me, what stuck out from your post is this:

To the contrary, I find it almost humorous that people seem to insist on his stellar character.

In other words, we laughable, benighted fools who continue to hold to the opinion that Joseph, though not perfect, was a great man need to relinquish our illusions and genuflect to the wise and august intelligentsia who know otherwise.

I don't blame Pahoran for responding as he did.

By the way, I reject your premise. When someone fills a high and holy calling such as Joseph Smith held, I believe character is, to a large degree, an issue. Those who malign him, while rationalizing their view by insisting that character doesn't matter, are no doubt passing ill-informed judgment.