Grant Palmer

[Joseph Antley]

Since I've never seen you dig up dirt on the Church's opponents, my comments on such efforts' lack of credibility don't apply to you.

Kind of like saying that all apostates are rapists, except for the ones that aren't.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Personally, I think Dan and Chris should both apologize to each other and acknowledge that they let their steam get ahead of their words.

Do I need to hold a Root Beer Summit next week?

Only if it's A&W. The only true and living Root Beer.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Since I've never seen you dig up dirt on the Church's opponents, my comments on such efforts' lack of credibility don't apply to you.

That's not what your previous comment said, though, which is why I entered the conversation in the first place.

[dblagent007]

Said the guy from the comfort of his pseudonym.

Tribe, my point has nothing to do with whether Dan posts under a pseudonym or not. It has everything to do with dropping hints of extremely bad behavior about others.

Edit: fixed typo

[the narrator]

>>Since I've never seen you dig up dirt on the Church's opponents, my comments on such efforts' lack of credibility don't apply to you.

That's not what your previous comment said, though, which is why I entered the conversation in the first place.

As long as FAIR has absurd and enemy-creating nonsense like this . . .

Laughable errors and blunders in the HBO series Big Love. Come see what happens when you get anti-Mormons to write your Mormon dialogue.

. . . taken off their Wiki homepage, I think that Chris's comment is a pretty FAIR assessment.

Seriously. Why make this extra long step (or steps) to call the writers of the show "anti-Mormon" when they clearly aren't to anybody who actually watches the show? It's unnecessary. It's simply the tactics of a community who desperately need an Other to demonize in order strengthen and attain self-validation. (By community, I do not mean Mormonism--which I am a believing member of, but rather the community of amateur apologetics such as FAIR).

Of course there will be exceptions, but the homepage seems to establish the rule

[ttribe]

Tribe, my point has nothing to do with whether Dan posts under a synonym or not. It has everything to do with dropping hints of extremely bad behavior about others.

Then, apparently, you missed MY point...entirely.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Seriously. Why make this extra long step (or steps) to call the writers of the show "anti-Mormon" when they clearly aren't to anybody who actually watches the show? It's unnecessary. It's simply the tactics of a community who desperately need an Other to demonize in order strengthen and attain self-validation. (By community, I do not mean Mormonism--which I am a believing member of, but rather the community of amateur apologetics such as FAIR).

Of course there will be exceptions, but the homepage seems to establish the rule

I prefer the "for further reading" section of the wiki article in question. (And I didn't add it there myself, incidentally).

http://en.fairmormon.org/%22Big_Love%22_and_the_temple

[the narrator]

I prefer the "for further reading" section of the wiki article in question. (And I didn't add it there myself, incidentally).

http://en.fairmormon..._and_the_temple

But unfortunately the voice of reason is relegated to the back of the bus. But enough about FAIR, don't want to derail this too much.

[USU78]

Only if it's A&W. The only true and living Root Beer.

I have to admit, A&W makes a really good rootbeer and probably the best diet rootbeer ever made.

But it doesn't make me miss Frostop rootbeer any less.

[LifeOnaPlate]

But unfortunately the voice of reason is relegated to the back of the bus. But enough about FAIR, don't want to derail this too much.

Looking over that wiki, I don't see anything particularly problematic in regards to tone, either. The lame toss-away teaser aside, I think it's a fine article.

[USU78]

Tribe, my point has nothing to do with whether Dan posts under a synonym or not. It has everything to do with dropping hints of extremely bad behavior about others.

I've got an idea. Let's come up with synonyms for Herrn Professor Doktor Peterson, as written by dblagent.

I'll start:

Evil Genius.

[dblagent007]

Then, apparently, you missed MY point...entirely.

Okay, I'll bite. How does my posting under a pseudonym have anything to do with Dan dropping hints of others bad behavior?

[dblagent007]

I've got an idea. Let's come up with synonyms for Herrn Professor Doktor Peterson, as written by dblagent.

I'll start:

Evil Genius.

Ah, c'mon. I fixed the typo. (although I did smile when I saw it)

[ttribe]

Okay, I'll bite. How does my posting under a pseudonym have anything to do with Dan dropping hints of others bad behavior?

Hmmm, well, you consistently malign the character of current and past leaders of the Church and do so from the comfort of anonymity, for example.

[ttribe]

I've got an idea. Let's come up with synonyms for Herrn Professor Doktor Peterson, as written by dblagent.

I'll start:

Evil Genius.

USU's on the right track.

[dblagent007]

Hmmm, well, you consistently malign the character of current and past leaders of the Church and do so from the comfort of anonymity, for example.

Whatever I do, I try not to do it by intentionally dropping hints about them. I come out and say it. There is a key difference between that and what Dan is doing.

[ttribe]

Whatever I do, I try not to do it by intentionally dropping hints about them. I come out and say it. There is a key difference between that and what Dan is doing.

And whatever he does, he tries not to do it anonymously where he can't be called to account for it. He does so under his own name, where he'll be accountable to a LARGE number for people. There is a key difference between that and what you are doing.

Are we done yet?

[Daniel Peterson]

Daniel, you claimed that Grant Palmer used "disingenuous means" in order to retain his employment and get a pension from the Church. That sounds like a "scam" to me.

You and I must speak different dialects of English.

Disingenuousness doesn't entail scam in my universe.

I don't know how my thread title over there qualifies as an "inaccurate" representation of what you said.

It does so only in the sense that it irresponsibly misrepresents what I said.

Having said that, it's clear to me that you're not going to take back what you said, and you don't regret saying it, and I'm not going to be able to convince you to regret saying it.

I see nothing to regret, and nothing to "take back."

Here's what I said in response to Jaybear's question about whether I was bothered by Grant Palmer's drawing of a pension from the Church Education System: It bothers me, and should bother anybody of integrity, if Louis Midgley's sources are correct in suggesting that Grant Palmer was only able to retain his CES employment (and, thus, to qualify for a CES pension) by disingenuous means. Otherwise, no problem.

That's a pretty mild and middle-of-the-road response. There was absolutely nothing in it to justify your fevered charges of "tripe" and "ideologically motivated slander" and "digging up dirt" and "rhetorical curmudgeonry." I said nothing about Palmer "scamming the Church," I made no attempt to "discredit" him, I said nothing of "fraud," I offered not so much as a hint of a charge that the Church ought to sue him for damages, I based nothing on "anonymous second-hand gossip." There was nothing "unprofessional," let alone "immoral," in what I said. It can't even remotely be termed "slander for ideological reasons" or "ideologically-motivated malicious gossip."

And it didn't justify your running over to the Compound to convene yet another redundant hate-fest directed at me.

As I said, "if Louis Midgley's sources are correct in suggesting that Grant Palmer was only able to retain his CES employment (and, thus, to qualify for a CES pension) by disingenuous means," then I find that dishonorable. If you believed Louis Midgley's sources to be correct, would you regard Grant Palmer's conduct as honorable?

Now, I happen to believe Louis Midgley's sources. I know many of them. I've known them for many years now. I've known them since long before I ever heard the name of Grant Palmer. It's possible, I suppose, that they're malicious liars. But I have no reason whatever to believe them to be such, and quite a bit of reason to think otherwise. And they were directly involved in the Grant Palmer case.

I'm sorry that you continue for some reason to believe I hate you. You are wrong, and I have literally no idea why you believe that about me.

You continue in your inflammatory misreadings. I've said nothing, not a word, about your "hating" me. Why do you invent such things?

I do believe, however, that you regard my faith with contempt, and I think that that occasionally manifests itself in contempt toward those who advocate it. You've said things about my good friend and former student John Gee, too, that I find reprehensible.

Dan, you have a habit of dropping hints about really bad things about people . . . so bad that you just can't disclose them. This is like the ultimate form of character attack. The person being attacked can't respond because he/she doesn't even know what the charge is, while the bystander is left to imagine lots of really bad stuff about the person. Off the top of my head, I've seen you do this to Mike Quinn and Eric Norwood so I guess its no surprise you would do it to Grant Palmer too.

That's flatly untrue, and, in any case, it's irrelevant. We're talking here about an article by Louis Midgley that was published, and that I stand behind.

In the case of Eric Norwood, I simply, and repeatedly, cautioned those who were singing Eric Norwood's praises that they were doing so on the basis of his account, and that they had not heard the accounts of those whom they were maligning. Pointing that out seems only fair to me. If, by contrast, you find it damnable, I hope never to meet you or have any dealings with you or live in the same community with you.

[dblagent007]

Are we done yet?

I think we're done since there is no relation to my posting in anonymity and Dan dropping hints.

[ttribe]

I think we're done since there is no relation to my posting in anonymity and Dan dropping hints.

LOL! You're right...what you're doing is worse.

[Wiki Wonka]

As long as FAIR has absurd and enemy-creating nonsense like this . . .

Laughable errors and blunders in the HBO series Big Love. Come see what happens when you get anti-Mormons to write your Mormon dialogue.

. . . taken off their Wiki homepage, I think that Chris's comment is a pretty FAIR assessment.

Hmmm...someone uttered the magic incantation words "FAIR" and "Wiki" and summoned me forth....

I didn't write this intro, but I can certainly modify it. I don't want to perpetuate this derail any longer than necessary, but how's this?

Laughable errors and blunders in the HBO series Big Love. Come see what happens when consultants critical of the Church help screenwriters create Mormon dialogue.

I can change the first sentence as well, but some of the errors were pretty amusing. If one reads the article, the elements that came from critical advisors are pretty obvious. For example, a line delivered by an actress during what was supposed to be a dramatic moment refers to her being called to "Love Court," or the use of President Packer's phrase ""some thing that are true are not very useful" in the Church court.

WW *

* A Certified Sockpuppet of Scott Gordon and/or Blair Hodges

[the narrator]

You and I must speak different dialects of English.

Disingenuousness doesn't entail scam in my universe.

It does so only in the sense that it irresponsibly misrepresents what I said.

Oh come on Dan, this sounds like a Carnie defense. Do we really need to start turning to dictionaries? If you are not accusing Palmer of engaging in dishonesty and deceit to acquire his job and pension, what are you saying? What do you mean? Obviously Chris doesn't think that Palmer was using some cups and a marble to swindle the Church, and I assume you are not interpreting his recast of your claim as such.

How do you interpret Chris's rewording of your accusation? And how does that differ from your original claim?

I see nothing to regret, and nothing to "take back."

Did you feel the necessity to state it though? What purpose did it serve?

You continue in your inflammatory misreadings. I've said nothing, not a word, about your "hating" me. Why do you invent such things?

Well you did say, "Snarl and spit and stereotype all you want, Smith. Just don't pretend to be friendly to me in Claremont, OK? I've had it with this sort of stuff from you."

Hardly words of endearment, don't you think? I don't know how to understand this in any other way than the grammar of anger and hatred.

If I were to talk to someone like this, and they confused it as an expression of hatred, I should be quick to apologize for saying such vile things which led to that misinterpretation.

I do believe, however, that you regard my faith with contempt, and I think that that occasionally manifests itself in contempt toward those who advocate it.

I just had a great dinner with Chris at a burger joint in Claremont (you should hit it up when you are in town). I can assure you that I felt no contempt from with because of my faith. Furthermore, he has been an excellent interlocutor with us (and as I mentioned before, your biggest defender) in our Mormon Studies courses at Claremont. Bushman could vouch for that.

While Chris may have been overgeneralizing about FARMS and FAIR (who doesn't overgeneralize here?), I think his comments point out the fact that many perceive FAIR and FARMS to be consistently engaging in the kind of personal attacks that Chris felt was going on here. As Chris pointed out, repeating these jabs and doing this very thing certainly does not help the image of FARMS and FAIR. And I am not talking about the image from critics, but the image of FARMS and FAIR that many of your own colleagues have, and certainly the image of FARMS and FAIR that the upcoming generation of Mormon Studies scholars have of those organizations.

[the narrator]

I didn't write this intro, but I can certainly modify it. I don't want to perpetuate this derail any longer than necessary, but how's this?

WW *

* A Certified Sockpuppet of Scott Gordon and/or Blair Hodges

Why not just:

Errors and mistakes in the HBO series Big Love. Come see what happens when non-Mormon screenwriters create Mormon dialogue.

Why make the unnecessary and unfounded move to calling them critics?

[Wiki Wonka]

Why not just:

Errors and mistakes in the HBO series Big Love. Come see what happens when non-Mormon screenwriters create Mormon dialogue.

Why make the unnecessary and unfounded move to calling them critics?

And, it is done. Thanks for the feedback.

WW

[lostindc]

Chris,

Two-faced behavior is going to wear on anyone.

What DCP said would hold up in any place of employment. I am not sure that you have entered the real world of employment but when you do, I believe what Palmer did will seem shady to even you. Where I work he would have been arrested for that type of behavior. At a minimum he would have lost his pension. BTW, minimize the usage of big words they seem to have little usage in what you are attempting to state.