J P Holding

[Russell C McGregor]

Since my apparently dreadful review of Mr Holding's opus The Mormon Defenders has been a topic of some discussion here recently, I have sought and obtained permission to respond in my own name.

Firstly, on the name issue: it is true that "Kevin Graham" did tell me that Holding did not want his true name to be known. In my shuffling of notes, I simply forgot that fact. I subsequently offered a personal explanation and apology to Mr Holding on that basis.

Perhaps Ms Jack would like to update that to her blog. But then again, perhaps she wouldn't.

Nonetheless, I am puzzled by exactly what the trouble was. Let's be clear about this: I understand anyone who wants to protect their privacy on the Internet; I prefer to do the same. I was not writing for the Internet, but for a print journal, but that's just by the way. However, Mr Holding's objection seems to be based on something more serious.

Mr Holding once worked as a prison librarian, under his (then) true name Which Must Not Be Mentioned. He subsequently wrote his anti-Mormon piece under his (then) pseudonym. Although he now "scarcely remembers" the incident, at the time he erupted with anger and practically accused me of setting the former prison population on his scent. How, exactly, does that work? Evidently he was aware of a number of Floridan ex-convicts who were filled with murderous rage towards him, who knew his then-true name, but whose rage was not sufficient to motivate them to go after him unless they saw his name (not his address or contact details or anything else about him, just his name) in an LDS apologetic journal, which must be popular if not standard reading fare among Florida ex-cons.

Wanting to preserve his privacy is something I can understand; but it was a safety issue for him? Really?

Luckily, he seems somehow to have survived. So far, at least; and no doubt by the skin of his teeth.

Incidentally, I just ran across this:

http://www.truthbekn...com/holding.htm

"In his typically vicious, unprofessional, unethical and immoral manner, Holding first revealed my name--also gained from this felonious source and now posted all over the internet--and then passed along the false and libelous material to his fanatic followers...."

Evidently Holding himself has done what he and his loyal acolyte, Ms Jack, are so exercised about me having done to him. It seems that in the little world of EV polemics, what's good for the goose is definitely not good for the gander.

It might also be worthwhile to read the entire page; not because it makes a good argument -- it doesn't -- but to contrast its tone to my review, which Holding and his cheer squad routinely denounce as mere "ad hominem." Well, that's the mantra, and without it, it seems that he, they, and apparently Ms Jack herself, would have nothing to say.

I have read "Kevin Graham's" diatribe, quoted at length and with evident approval by Ms Jack on her blog. I was looking to respond there, but comments are now, conveniently, closed.

Mr "Graham" does a lot of mind-reading that invariably misses the mark. For instance, he takes my aside, in a footnote, to the effect that "JP Holding" was (at the time) a pseudonym, and then fancies an attempt on my part to manipulate both of my readers into speculating about whatever else Mr Holding had to hide. I confess that I was completely unaware of this cynical and nefarious intention of mine, although it was supposed to have existed in my mind. Actually the only mind where it can be proved to have existed is in Mr "Graham's". Will Ms Jack unload on him for his baseless accusation? I should live so long!

Now to my review: when I looked at Mr Holding's book, I was struck by two things: (1) it did indeed use some original arguments, but (2) those arguments led both inevitably and quickly to the same old anti-Mormon conclusions as the old discarded -- and hence, discredited -- arguments did. This suggested to me that the conclusions, and not the evidence, controlled the direction the arguments would go. This was borne out when I noticed that Holding would take one hermeneutic approach to a given topic, and then adopt a completely different approach on a different topic. Evidently a single consistent approach would not yield the required results. It was on this basis that I constructed my review as I did.

I was also then operating under time constraints which had nothing to do with FARMS deadlines, and everything to do with my own priorities at home and work. I therefore decided to make my review a preliminary one; if the book gained more notice later on, a longer and more detailed review could be done. I did not think then, and do not think now, that the book required a more detailed review on its merits. It is not an important book; it is merely another attempt to get to the stock standard anti-Mormon conclusions by utilising different arguments, the old ones having proved themselves inadequate to the task.

That was the point of my review. As far as I can tell, neither Holding's hissy fit in response, nor Mr "Graham's" huffing and puffing, nor yet Ms Jack's prim disapproval has seriously challenged that point.

Russell McGregor

Complete Scoundrel.

[Ms. Jack]

Hello Mr. McGregor,

So nice of you to drop by and address this topic yourself.

I was also then operating under time constraints which had nothing to do with FARMS deadlines' date=' and everything to do with my own priorities at home and work. [/quote']

Incidentally, I have very pressing priorities at home and work right now myself, including but not limited to:

(1) Having just moved into a new apartment on account of our old one having been rendered uninhabitable via windstorm damage. That means a household to organize and an apartment full of boxes to unpack.

(2) Having to make up hours at work this week due to having missed them last week on account of all the circumstances that went with my family's homelessness.

(3) Having two publication deadlines coming up, a television interview to get ready for, and two Sunstone presentation/panels to finish preparing for.

That means if you (and Bernard Gui, for that matter) would like an in-depth response from me, you will just have to be patient. I'm sorry to make you all wait, but when I made the remarks on your article that started this all back on Monday, June 28, I had no idea I was signing up for a spectacle of this magnitude.

Perhaps Ms Jack would like to update that to her blog. But then again' date=' perhaps she wouldn't.[/quote']

Ms. Jack is happy to update her post with any relevant details concerning this saga (or, as will probably be more appropriate, start a new post to discuss this issue specifically, since I have no further comment to offer on the other matters that transpired between Daniel Peterson and myself). She's also happy to allow further commentary, having only closed the first post as part of a good-will gesture to bury the hatchet on this issue since Dr. Peterson had offered Holding a formal apology and finally corrected the wayward endnote in the online version of the article. So far she's tremendously satisfied that the emerging facts and recollections have only corroborated her initial critique in this matter.

However, in the mean time, there is one thing I could use your clarification on:

I subsequently offered a personal explanation and apology to Mr Holding on that basis.

So, you're saying that you wrote to J. P. Holding in 2002 and offered a personal explanation and apology to him?

If so, is there some reason the online version of the FARMS article was not corrected?

As Consiglieri would say, just the facts, sir, just the facts.

[selek]

As Consiglieri would say, just the facts, sir, just the facts.

Pity that you, Holding, and the inestimable Mr. Graham treat this laudible standard as a matter of "Do as I say, not as I do".

[Vance]

Alas, with so much hubub about J P Holding going on, I just had to go and read your review.

The parts that stuck out to me most was,

' . . . the only overriding principle appears to be a search for whatever readings provide the most useful argument against Latter-day Saint beliefs and truth claims.'

And,

'The approach is always the same: since the Bible says what "we" (i.e., the evangelicals) think it means, and since "they" (i.e., anyone else) think it means something different, it follows that "they" are not biblical.'

Those are accurate statements from my experience.

Well said.

[USU78]

So, you're saying that you wrote to J. P. Holding in 2002 and offered a personal explanation and apology to him?

Is there a reason Jack is accusing the OP of fudging?

[Daniel Peterson]

So far as I can recall, when Mr. Holding's real name showed up in the review, I thought it was common knowledge. Then I was told that doing so was a mistake. But it didn't seem a big one, nobody seemed really upset, I resist having the on-line veraion read differently than the print version reads unless there's something that requires such a move, and, so, no change was made.

It was only a few days ago that I learned, to my complete astonishment, that two people (Mr. Holding not among them) were seething about this matter eight years after publication of the review.

I sent a note of apology to Mr. Holding at that point. He responded, saying that he scarcely remembered the matter bit that it would be "just as well" if his then-real name were omitted from the one-line footnote in which it was mentioned. Within minutes, I had asked the Maxwell Institute staff to make the change. It has been changed for several days now.

There seems very little to this story.

Clarification by iPhone from a distant clime . . .

[Russell C McGregor]

Hello Mr. McGregor,

So nice of you to drop by and address this topic yourself.

Incidentally, I have very pressing priorities at home and work right now myself, including but not limited to:

(1) Having just moved into a new apartment on account of our old one having been rendered uninhabitable via windstorm damage. That means a household to organize and an apartment full of boxes to unpack.

(2) Having to make up hours at work this week due to having missed them last week on account of all the circumstances that went with my family's homelessness.

(3) Having two publication deadlines coming up, a television interview to get ready for, and two Sunstone presentation/panels to finish preparing for.

That means if you (and Bernard Gui, for that matter) would like an in-depth response from me, you will just have to be patient. I'm sorry to make you all wait, but when I made the remarks on your article that started this all back on Monday, June 28, I had no idea I was signing up for a spectacle of this magnitude.

I'm sorry about what happened to your home, and I hope your living arrangements are getting sorted out.

I'm a little surprised, though, that you seem to have expected me to let your drive-by sneers go unanswered. You may respond as deeply, or indeed as superficially, as you prefer, and in your own time.

Ms. Jack is happy to update her post with any relevant details concerning this saga (or, as will probably be more appropriate, start a new post to discuss this issue specifically, since I have no further comment to offer on the other matters that transpired between Daniel Peterson and myself). She's also happy to allow further commentary, having only closed the first post as part of a good-will gesture to bury the hatchet on this issue since Dr. Peterson had offered Holding a formal apology and finally corrected the wayward endnote in the online version of the article. So far she's tremendously satisfied that the emerging facts and recollections have only corroborated her initial critique in this matter.

"Only corroborated?" You seem to be viewing these "emerging facts and recollections" with a remarkably selective eye.

However, in the mean time, there is one thing I could use your clarification on:

So, you're saying that you wrote to J. P. Holding in 2002 and offered a personal explanation and apology to him?

I don't recall in what year it was. I can only say for certain that it was after "Kevin Graham" abused me for the slip, and referred me to Holding's rather vituperative response. (The current incarnation, incidentally, is considerably toned down from what it was.)

In fact, now that I think about it, the email may not have gone directly to Mr Holding at all. It may have gone by way of "Kevin." I no longer have the computer in question (it was a Windows 97 machine) and so I'm sorry that I can't give you more detail than that.

If so, is there some reason the online version of the FARMS article was not corrected?

As Consiglieri would say, just the facts, sir, just the facts.

The online version of the FARMS article was not under my control. I was considering requesting that it be changed, pending Mr Holding's anticipated acceptance of my apology; instead, all I got was a snarl to the effect that "McGregor must have the memory of a deceased elephant." Not a bad one-liner, but hardly calculated to make me feel concliatory towards him. I was prepared to make amends, but I wasn't about to grovel.

Sorry if that disappoints you, and all that.

Russell McGregor,

Complete Scoundrel

[sethpayne]

Mr McGregor,

Why do you keep putting Kevin Graham's name in quotes? The joke is completely lost on me.

Seth

[Ms. Jack]

Firstly, on the name issue: it is true that "Kevin Graham"

I don't know what this business is with the skepticism on Kevin Graham's name, and for the purposes of this matter I don't much care, but let's put it to rest. His name is Kevin Wayne Graham. I attended his wedding reception in February 2002 and "Kevin Graham" was the name on his wedding announcement in addition to being the name everyone called him by.

A close friend had written to me and asked me about this in 2007, at a time when Kevin and I were not speaking to each other, and I told him/her the same thing I wrote above (I still have the correspondence). I saw the wedding announcement in my files just last month (though it's now buried in moving boxes) and double-checked it to confirm that the name on it was Kevin Graham.

Unless anyone thinks Graham would send out fake wedding announcements to all of his friends and get his bride's family to call him by a fake name, I think we can safely conclude that his name really is Kevin Graham.

did tell me that Holding did not want his true name to be known. In my shuffling of notes, I simply forgot that fact.

So now you claim that you did know, prior to the publication of your review, that Holding did not want his real name published, yet you still published it because you "simply forgot"? And this is supposed to alleviate you from my charge that you acted irresponsibly how?

Mr Holding once worked as a prison librarian, under his (then) true name Which Must Not Be Mentioned. He subsequently wrote his anti-Mormon piece under his (then) pseudonym.

Had you done a little research prior to submitting your review, you'd have known that his then-pseudonym (which happened to be his legal name at birth) was the name he had published all of his writings and articles under, including the articles he had done for Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal and Christian Research Journal. No mention of "Turkel," ever. He was completely consistent in keeping his pseudonymous activities separate from his real-life activities.

Although he now "scarcely remembers" the incident, at the time he erupted with anger and practically accused me of setting the former prison population on his scent. How, exactly, does that work? Evidently he was aware of a number of Floridan ex-convicts who were filled with murderous rage towards him, who knew his then-true name, but whose rage was not sufficient to motivate them to go after him unless they saw his name (not his address or contact details or anything else about him, just his name) in an LDS apologetic journal, which must be popular if not standard reading fare among Florida ex-cons.

Seems to me, Mr. McGregor, that you're ignorant of the dangers of working in a prison as well as the nature of how information spreads on the Internet. My father works for a prison, and let me tell you, he does not tell his inmates anything about himself. Not even his marital status nor whether or not he has children and grandchildren. When my mother was alive, he did not wear a wedding ring to work; he's getting re-married next month at which point he'll resume not wearing a wedding ring to work. They know him as "Officer Lastname" and that's it. He sure as hell would never want his real name plastered all over the Internet.

Now, the concern with an organization like FARMS outing Holding was never that the inmates themselves would read the FARMS Review and reply, "Aha! So that Turkel guy I hate likes to argue with Mormons. Time to go look him up and pummel him." The concern is that FARMS readers will learn his real name and mention it elsewhere on the Internet, where it will be read and mentioned by still others, where eventually someone who is mad at Holding over online happenings will post other personal information about him, thereby making his information easily accessible via search engines. It's a domino effect.

The initial sources of the leak did not have to publish his phone number, address and Social Security Number all by themselves. Just putting his real name out there where the proletariat can pick up on the dirty work is enough to get the damage rolling.

Wanting to preserve his privacy is something I can understand; but it was a safety issue for him? Really?

Yes, really.

Evidently Holding himself has done what he and his loyal acolyte, Ms Jack, are so exercised about me having done to him. It seems that in the little world of EV polemics, what's good for the goose is definitely not good for the gander.

It seems that 8 years has done little to improve your ability to do solid research before making irresponsible statements about people. Holding didn't "out" Acharya S; Robert Price did.

Mr "Graham" does a lot of mind-reading that invariably misses the mark. For instance, he takes my aside, in a footnote, to the effect that "JP Holding" was (at the time) a pseudonym, and then fancies an attempt on my part to manipulate both of my readers into speculating about whatever else Mr Holding had to hide. I confess that I was completely unaware of this cynical and nefarious intention of mine, although it was supposed to have existed in my mind. Actually the only mind where it can be proved to have existed is in Mr "Graham's". Will Ms Jack unload on him for his baseless accusation? I should live so long!

Please. You're a writer, Mr. McGregor, and there comes a point where writers need to take a little responsibility for how others interpret their words regardless of their intentions. Your footnote said, "I have reason to believe that James Patrick Holding is a pseudonym for Robert Turkel." Reason to believe? You mean you weren't even completely sure that was his real name? And could you possibly have made that sound any more cloak-and-dagger? Where did you get the information on Holding's name, anyhow?

Personally, I suspect you got it from the same place you got the information on Acharya S that you posted here: by sifting through the angry rants of Internet Christ-mythers who were pissed off at Holding. You certainly didn't get it from writing to Holding to ask him about it as a responsible researcher would have done.

Now to my review: when I looked at Mr Holding's book, I was struck by two things: (1) it did indeed use some original arguments, but (2) those arguments led both inevitably and quickly to the same old anti-Mormon conclusions as the old discarded -- and hence, discredited -- arguments did.

Your entire assessment of the book as "anti-Mormon" was well-poisoning at its finest. The book never claimed that Mormons weren't Christians, it never called Mormonism a "cult", it never suggested that Mormons were bad, malicious, greedy or stupid, it never suggested that the Mormon church needed to be down-sized or eradicated, and it did not rely on previous anti-Mormon works. If Holding's book was "anti-Mormon," then I'm beginning to suspect that there is no way for evangelicals to debate and engage Mormons without the FARMS Review labeling their efforts "anti-Mormon"---and given that the Review has likewise labeled books and articles such as The New Mormon Challenge, I [Love] Mormons, and "Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It" as "anti-Mormon," that appears to be the case.

I think that Holding's response more than adequately dealt with what your review said about hermeneutical shifts.

I was also then operating under time constraints which had nothing to do with FARMS deadlines, and everything to do with my own priorities at home and work. I therefore decided to make my review a preliminary one; if the book gained more notice later on, a longer and more detailed review could be done.

Seems to me that if you lacked the time to responsibly interact with the book by your deadline, the Review should have left it alone altogether or someone else should have done the review.

I'm a little surprised, though, that you seem to have expected me to let your drive-by sneers go unanswered.

I expected someone would respond to my comments. I didn't expect that it would lead to four threads on this forum and two on the other one, five of them specifically discussing related things that I'd said or calling me out in the OP, none of them started by me. I think we can all agree that for an issue that is supposedly such a small matter, that is a little excessive.

"Only corroborated?" You seem to be viewing these "emerging facts and recollections" with a remarkably selective eye.

Feel free to list some of these "facts" that have contradicted my presentation of the situation. Bear in mind that sneering hyperbolic recap ? "fact."

I don't recall in what year it was. I can only say for certain that it was after "Kevin Graham" abused me for the slip, and referred me to Holding's rather vituperative response. (The current incarnation, incidentally, is considerably toned down from what it was.)

In fact, now that I think about it, the email may not have gone directly to Mr Holding at all. It may have gone by way of "Kevin." I no longer have the computer in question (it was a Windows 97 machine) and so I'm sorry that I can't give you more detail than that.

Well, this just gets thinner and thinner. Now you don't even know when you "offered" this apology or whether you actually made it. Graham has no recollection of you offering to apologize, only you blowing off Holding's safety concerns (which matches what you've done on this thread). Holding has confirmed to me that he never received an apology from you.

So which facts and clarifications do you think I should add to my blog post? That you maybe, sort of, thought about offering an apology and explanation to Holding, but apparently never did and that you thought his concerns with online outings making it easier for vindictive inmates to look him up were silly and overblown to begin with?

So far as I can recall, when Mr. Holding's real name showed up in the review, I thought it was common knowledge. Then I was told that doing so was a mistake. But it didn't seem a big one, nobody seemed really upset,

Something is not adding up here. Kevin Graham claimed that Holding "implored" him to have his name removed from the article and that he (Graham) contacted you and relayed this information to you. McGregor has now corroborated this in his OP, stating that Holding "erupted with anger" over the issue. Yet according to you, "nobody seemed really upset"?

8 years later, when Holding himself no longer cares and the issue no longer poses a threat to his safety, now it's worth apologizing for and issuing a retraction? Why is that?

I resist having the on-line veraion read differently than the print version reads unless there's something that requires such a move, and, so, no change was made.

I'm sorry to hear that the man's safety concerns weren't enough to motivate such a change at the time.

It was only a few days ago that I learned, to my complete astonishment, that two people (Mr. Holding not among them) were seething about this matter eight years after publication of the review.

Please. I was annoyed, Dan, not "seething," and I think the fact that you and McGregor are either unable or unwilling to discuss this issue without cluttering your posts with these hyperbolic rhetorical flourishes ("her board," "his acolyte," "seething," "complete scoundrel," "the evil DCP") speaks volumes for the strength of your case.

[Daniel Peterson]

I'm far, far away, typing laboriously on an iPhone, Ms Jack, and won't be responding to your suggestions that I'm lying and that I'm callously indifferent to the safety of others except to say that I'm not -- and that nobody who actually knows me would ever imagine such offensive things.

As for your "seething," I can't think of a more charitable explanation for your eruption at a quite harmless PM.

[Daniel Peterson]

I'm posting nowhere but here, and, even then, only to deny that I'm dishonest and/or callously indifferent to the safety of other people. It's a weird personal quirk of mine, but I tend to resist false public attacks on my character. If I were not a semi-public figure, I might not care. If I posted under a pseudonym, I certainly wouldn't.

As for the iPhone: I just got it a couple of months ago. Too much travel (as right now) and too many important e-mails and phone calls to.be incommunicado for weeks on end.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm posting nowhere but here, and, even then, only to deny that I'm dishonest and/or callously indifferent to the safety of other people. It's a weird personal quirk of mine, but I tend to resist false public attacks on my character. If I were not a semi-public figure, I might not care. If I posted under a pseudonym, I certainly wouldn't.

Yes. I'm not so quick as some to dismiss the effort to counter unjust attacks on one's own reputation as "trivial."

As for the iPhone: I just got it a couple of months ago. Too much travel (as right now) and too many important e-mails and phone calls to.be incommunicado for weeks on end.

Ah, but look what it has done. It has ensured that the public attacks on your character dog you to the remotest regions of the globe. The iPhone is the devil's tool, I tell you. The PDA was a boon that became a bane when it morphed into the "smart phone."

[Ms. Jack]

I would just like to note that Kevin Graham has found and posted on the other board some of the original correspondence between himself and McGregor on this matter from back in December 2002 when this all erupted.

[Nemesis]

I would just like to note that Kevin Graham has found and posted on the other board some of the original correspondence between himself and McGregor on this matter from back in December 2002 when this all erupted.

Along with where McGregor works and his wife's name.

Nemesis

P.S. I'm cleaning out off topic posts.

[Ms. Jack]

Along with where McGregor works and his wife's name.

Yes. I've already sent Kevin a note requesting that he clear that out of the correspondence.

P.S. I'm cleaning out off topic posts.

Much appreciated.

[Nemesis]

Yes. I've already sent Kevin a note requesting that he clear that out of the correspondence.

Nemesis at MAD said I posted McGregor's wife's name??Where did I do that??

So I must be lying right?

Nemesis

[Ms. Jack]

Anyways, I really do need to take at least a day off of this forum and work on my projects for my deadlines. If I reply again it will not be until late tomorrow night.

Thank you to the mods for their work in keeping this thread on-topic.

[Mark Beesley]

P.S. I'm cleaning out off topic posts.

You've got waaaaaaay too much time on your hands.

[dianaiad]

Your footnote said, "I have reason to believe that James Patrick Holding is a pseudonym for Robert Turkel."

Now I may be a little on the naive side and all, but it seems to me that until right now, nobody knew that James Patrick Holding's real name is Robert Turkel. The man y'all are so mad at has been very careful to avoid mentioning his name on this (or any other thread that I've seen) and has just told us that A: he apologized for his mention earlier, and B: requested that the name be removed from the footnote.

Which would, of course, have been that....but now you have put it forward where Dr. Peterson has tried rather valiently to NOT mention it, and has taken steps to have it removed from his review.

Guess what, everybody? James Patrick Holding's name is REALLY Robert Turkel!!!

.............................and it was Mrs. JACK who spilled the beans!

[rockslider]

P.S. I'm cleaning out off topic posts.

Ouch, I felt like maybe some other criteria was in effect.

[Russell C McGregor]

I would just like to note that Kevin Graham has found and posted on the other board some of the original correspondence between himself and McGregor on this matter from back in December 2002 when this all erupted.

Yes, I have seen that thread. Thank you so much for bringing it to our attention, Aunty Jack.

Kevin is a real class act. No wonder you and he are such good buds.

[Russell C McGregor]

So now you claim that you did know, prior to the publication of your review, that Holding did not want his real name published, yet you still published it because you "simply forgot"? And this is supposed to alleviate you from my charge that you acted irresponsibly how?

It doesn't. It's a mea culpa. The point is that there was no malice.

Again: sorry to disappoint you.

Had you done a little research prior to submitting your review, you'd have known that his then-pseudonym (which happened to be his legal name at birth) was the name he had published all of his writings and articles under, including the articles he had done for Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal and Christian Research Journal. No mention of "Turkel," ever. He was completely consistent in keeping his pseudonymous activities separate from his real-life activities.

And had you done a little research, Aunty Jack, you would know that the Holding=XXXXXX connection was all over the Internet. And that he had posted on at least one message board (and possibly one or more Usenet forums) under the XXXXXX name. He may have been careful about keeping XXXXXX from his print publication, but it was hardly a secret in the Cyber-world.

Now, the concern with an organization like FARMS outing Holding was never that the inmates themselves would read the FARMS Review and reply, "Aha! So that Turkel guy I hate likes to argue with Mormons. Time to go look him up and pummel him." The concern is that FARMS readers will learn his real name and mention it elsewhere on the Internet, where it will be read and mentioned by still others, where eventually someone who is mad at Holding over online happenings will post other personal information about him, thereby making his information easily accessible via search engines. It's a domino effect.

The initial sources of the leak did not have to publish his phone number, address and Social Security Number all by themselves. Just putting his real name out there where the proletariat can pick up on the dirty work is enough to get the damage rolling.

Fair enough; but see below.

It seems that 8 years has done little to improve your ability to do solid research before making irresponsible statements about people. Holding didn't "out" Acharya S; Robert Price did.

Just like I didn't "out" Holding. I did precisely what he himself did: picked up on publicly available information that had already been put out there by others.

But apparently, in your view, McGregor does it == evil; Holding does it == okay.

Watch out there Aunty Jack; your double standards are showing.

Please. You're a writer, Mr. McGregor, and there comes a point where writers need to take a little responsibility for how others interpret their words regardless of their intentions. Your footnote said, "I have reason to believe that James Patrick Holding is a pseudonym for Robert Turkel." Reason to believe? You mean you weren't even completely sure that was his real name? And could you possibly have made that sound any more cloak-and-dagger?

If I'd wanted to, I could have. How about this: "I have learned from an anonymous informant that James Patrick Holding is the cover name used by XXXXXX XXXXXX, an employee of a secretive US government agency."

I wasn't trying to make anything sound "cloak and dagger." That is simply what you and your Doppelganger, Mr Graham, choose to read into it.

Where did you get the information on Holding's name, anyhow?

See above.

Personally, I suspect you got it from the same place you got the information on Acharya S that you posted here: by sifting through the angry rants of Internet Christ-mythers who were pissed off at Holding.

There was no "sifting" involved; it was about the second hit of my Google search.

Your entire assessment of the book as "anti-Mormon" was well-poisoning at its finest. The book never claimed that Mormons weren't Christians, it never called Mormonism a "cult", it never suggested that Mormons were bad, malicious, greedy or stupid, it never suggested that the Mormon church needed to be down-sized or eradicated, and it did not rely on previous anti-Mormon works.

Oh, so that's what anti-Mormon means, is it? And all this time I thought it just meant "opposed to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Who knew?

There was no "well-poisoning" involved, Aunty. Just calling things by their right names.

If Holding's book was "anti-Mormon," then I'm beginning to suspect that there is no way for evangelicals to debate and engage Mormons without the FARMS Review labeling their efforts "anti-Mormon"---and given that the Review has likewise labeled books and articles such as The New Mormon Challenge, I [Love] Mormons, and "Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It" as "anti-Mormon," that appears to be the case.

Call for references, please; where has the Review called the Mosser and Owen essay "anti-Mormon?"

I think that Holding's response more than adequately dealt with what your review said about hermeneutical shifts.

I don't agree.

Russell C McGregor

[phaedrus ut]

Yes, I have seen that thread. Thank you so much for bringing it to our attention, Aunty Jack.

Kevin is a real class act. No wonder you and he are such good buds.

You might want to vary your posting style otherwise you'll clearly outing yourself as your pseudonym.

Phaedrus

[Russell C McGregor]

You might want to vary your posting style otherwise you'll clearly outing yourself as your pseudonym.

Phaedrus

The last person to comment on that thought I was a sockpuppet for DCP.

I was flattered.

Incidentally, over on the Sty, where Kevin Graham so thoughtfully posted my wife's name and my employment details, he subsequently deleted the reference to my wife, saying that it was a mistake.

Well, mistakes happen; so it probably was.

Evidently, however, Mormons don't make mistakes, so anything I write must be done with malice aforethought.

C'est la vie.

Still and all, if I continue to bring this up at intervals over the next eight years, you'd have to say, wouldn't you, that I was being preternaturally petty about it.

What say you, Ms Jack?

Russell McGregor

Complete Scoundrel

[Ms. Jack]

Guess what, everybody? James Patrick Holding's name is REALLY Robert Turkel!!!

.............................and it was Mrs. JACK who spilled the beans!

Nonsense. Holding's name became a non-issue in 2007 when he legally changed it from Robert Turkel to James Patrick Holding (which, again, was his name at birth anyways). I expressly received permission to discuss the matter and mention his name when I did a blog post on him on January 25, 2009.

I give you a gold star for effort though.

Yes, I have seen that thread. Thank you so much for bringing it to our attention, Aunty Jack.

"Aunty"? Russell, I only have three nieces and one nephew, and since they're ages 1-6, I'm pretty sure you're not one of them. You're welcome to address me as Jack, Ms. Jeffries, or my handle, Ms. Jack.

Kevin is a real class act. No wonder you and he are such good buds.

I'm sorry that your wife's name slipped past the strenuous peer review process of The Kevin W. Graham Review of FARMS. However, Kevin removed the offending reference within 20 minutes of publishing it and only had to be asked once, which means he beat the FARMS Review by approximately 8 years and multiple requests.

Incidentally, over on the Sty, where Kevin Graham so thoughtfully posted my wife's name and my employment details,

Your employment details are available in the FARMS Review issue where you published your review of Holding's book, in the "about the author" section, so I fail to see why you're complaining about Kevin posting that.

Evidently, however, Mormons don't make mistakes, so anything I write must be done with malice aforethought.

Russell, I'm happy to update my blog post stating that you had no ill intentions in publishing Holding's name and, according to you, it was an honest mistake.

Still and all, if I continue to bring this up at intervals over the next eight years, you'd have to say, wouldn't you, that I was being preternaturally petty about it.

What say you, Ms Jack?

Ms. Jack would say that she's not the one who launched six threads to discuss this and related matters (four here and two at the other board), three of which were started after she had fulfilled her promise to close her own blog post, bury the hatchet on the issue, and let the matter drop.

And had you done a little research, Aunty Jack, you would know that the Holding=XXXXXX connection was all over the Internet. [sNIP] He may have been careful about keeping XXXXXX from his print publication, but it was hardly a secret in the Cyber-world.

Now this is reading like a really awful comedy. You honestly believe that I've been friends with Holding for twelve years and I didn't know others were "outing" him on the Internet prior to the FARMS Review doing it? That doesn't mitigate my complaint in any way, shape or form.

And that he had posted on at least one message board (and possibly one or more Usenet forums) under the XXXXXX name.

This I'm not aware of, and Holding has no recollection of it if true, but I don't think it matters very much. Perhaps he did post under his real name once or twice somewhere in the distant past and then thought better of it. I could point to several ZLMB threads where you responded to posts containing your real name or were outed by buddy apologists without objecting, yet here you are, not wanting the world to connect the dots.

And you know what? I don't care. If you want to hold onto your thin veil of privacy, that's fine by me and I don't believe anyone should "out" you.

Just like I didn't "out" Holding. I did precisely what he himself did: picked up on publicly available information that had already been put out there by others.

But apparently, in your view, McGregor does it == evil; Holding does it == okay.

Acharya's charge that Holding was the first to out her and spread her name far and wide is false. That was done by Robert M. Price in "Aquarian Skeptic," Free Inquiry 21 (3): 66-7. That was the claim in the article that you linked to. Now, if you really want to prove that Holding is a hypocrite in this matter, you're going to have to show:

(1) That Acharya S continued trying to maintain her anonymity after her massive outing at the hands of Robert Price.

(2) That Acharya S or someone on her behalf contacted Holding and asked him not to publish her name on his Web site, and that Holding failed to remove the offending reference.

(3) That Acharya S was not one of the skeptics spreading Holding's real name at the time. I don't think two wrongs make a right, but if she was involved in outing Holding prior to the publication of her own name, I can understand why he would return the favor.

When you can show all that, then you have indeed proven Holding a bona fide hypocrite. Best of luck.

I wasn't trying to make anything sound "cloak and dagger." That is simply what you and your Doppelganger, Mr Graham, choose to read into it.

I'm content to let others read your cryptic little footnote and decide that for themselves.

Oh, so that's what anti-Mormon means, is it? And all this time I thought it just meant "opposed to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Who knew?

Holding isn't "opposed to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." He doesn't even believe that the church is all that far outside of orthodoxy. Questioning the validity of someone's interpretations of the Bible ? being all-out opposed to them as a people.

Call for references, please; where has the Review called the Mosser and Owen essay "anti-Mormon?"

"In their original call for better anti-Mormon attacks by evangelicals, Mosser and Owen wrote as follows about New Approaches to the Book of Mormon . . ." See Matthew Roper and John A. Tvedtnes,