J P Holding

[LifeOnaPlate]

Hey everyone, I've been out of town. What'd I miss?

[rockslider]

Hand up, waving

[Mark Beesley]

Hey everyone, I've been out of town. What'd I miss?

Had another minor tremor in San Diego last night, but other than that, nuthin'.

[ttribe]

Hey everyone, I've been out of town. What'd I miss?

Drama and a tempest in a Dixie cup.

[dianaiad]

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.

Then I utterly fail to see what your problem is. It seems to me that this entire issue should be put in the Dictionary of Cliche's as "Tempest in a teapot"

[Scott Lloyd]

"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,

[ERayR]

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.

In all the drama I just couldn't let this slip by. IMO I find it less than truthful for someone to profess they are not "opposed to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." while they are writing or saying things "opposed to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Methinks they are either lying or very good at mental gymnastics.

[Vance]

This amounts to calling their essay anti-Mormon? I don't see it.

Perhaps you need to borrow some anti-mormon blinders. With them you can see things that aren't there and not see things that are there.

[Bsix]

Here is the "As the Stomach Turns" or "Days of our (Sorry Internet) Lives" plot summary...

I think that Ms. Jack made some crack about an 8-year old FARMS review on the other board.

DCP contacted Ms. Jack via PM with a sarcastic email about how he reread the review and liked it.

Ms. Jack responded with a little potty language and anger telling DCP not to ever contact her again.

Ms. Jack apparently made public characterizations about DCP and his emails on the other board.

DCP then posted the very short email exchange on this message board.

Ms. Jack throws a fit about private emails being made public.

Board war ensues

All sorts of nasty accusations are made about Russell McGregor, the original author of the FARMS review. JP Holding was outted in the FARMS review...no he wasn't...yes he was...no he wasn't...yes he was...his life was put at risk...no he wasn't...yes he was...

DCP emails and apologizes to 'his-life-is-endangered' JP Holding.

JP Holding doesn't really care.

DCP and Ms. Jack make up.

McGregor responds as himself on MADb.

Ms. Jack is homeless.

Ms. Jack is no longer homeless.

McGregor is outted on the other board as [edit].

General hatefest for [edit] over on the other board.

K. Graham posts private emails between he and McGregor on the other message board.

More board war attacks.

JP Holding is an antiMormon...no he isn't...yes he is...no he isn't...

More private emails and identities are disclosed.

More anger.

More accusations.

Whew...I think I have the general plot about right. I hear that soap operas always end on Friday with big drama so as to sustain viewer interest over the weekend.

Tomorrow should be pretty exciting.

Six

[urroner]

Tomorrow should be pretty exciting.

Six

Tomorrow, a bunch of my friends, whom I have worked with for many years, get to come to work and find out that for some of them tomorrow is the last day for their job. They will be told to clean their desks out and then they will go to another fine meeting to find out what they will be getting for being laid off, do some important paperwork, and then they will be escorted off the Space Center and this all because somebody in D.C. has decided that the money being used for manned space flight can be used better someplace else and that NASA can be better used to make a certain group of people feel better about themselves. Nothing like getting caponized.

Sorry Bsix, but that will be more than enough excitement for me tomorrow and probably for the rest of the year.

[Bsix]

Sorry Bsix, but that will be more than enough excitement for me tomorrow and probably for the rest of the year.

My in-jest post gives this affair more attention than it deserves. For what it is worth, I think that just about anything in real life will be more exciting that this internet side show.

With that observation, I'm leaving this one alone.

Six

[Russell C McGregor]

"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.

It's a literary reference. Sorry you missed it.

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.

And that makes it all good, does it?

Could you be any more partisan if you tried?

FYI: Mr Graham, whom you admire so much, only knew my wife's name in the first place because I made the egregious mistake of trusting him. I unreservedly apologise for that, too.

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.

You "fail to see why" I'm not pleased that my wife's name, and other personal details about me, were published on that rather downmarket forum by one of the least pleasant people I know?

Evidently there is a great deal you "fail to see."

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.

I have set the record straight. What you choose to do about that, whether on your blog or elsewhere, is of little interest to me, except to the extent that it helps me to understand your character better.

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.

Yes, after you got your licks in, you magnanimously decided to let the matter drop. How very broad-minded of you. But in fact, I was not referring to you, but to the deeply admired Mr Kevin Graham.

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.

I'm sure nothing could possibly mitigate your complaint in any way, shape or form. The fact remains, however, that Holding was not "outed" in that obscure footnote in my little review, because it contained no information that anybody could not have found in five minutes of googling.

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.

Yes, and we come back to this: when the vile Mr Graham sticks it to me, yet again, eight years after my error, it garners not a word of protest from you; while, eight years after the fact, that little mistake of mine still calls forth vast outpourings of disgust and vituperation from you and the rabid haters you admire so much.

Your hypocrisy is only exceeded by your double standards.

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.

And that explains your complete failure to even mildly remonstrate with the hate clique--how, exactly?

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.

You've missed the point; was it intentional? It's not Holding's hypocrisy I'm pointing out here.

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

Sure you are; but only after you've planted the idea. "Read McGregor's carefully worded insinuation that Holding had something to hide by using a nom de plume, and make up your own mind whether it was cloak-and-daggerish or not -- but I wouldn't dream of influencing you, not for the world!"

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.

You're equivocating. "Anti-Mormon" doesn't mean "opposed to them as a people," although it can entail that (and does, with some.) It simply means "opposed to the Church of Jesus Christ." Mr Holding wrote a book that does not merely "question the validity of someone's interpretations of the Bible," but directly challenges central LDS doctrines.

It's anti-Mormon, simpliciter. I'm sorry if my mentioning that fact offends you, but there it is.

"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,

[lostindc]

Tomorrow, a bunch of my friends, whom I have worked with for many years, get to come to work and find out that for some of them tomorrow is the last day for their job. They will be told to clean their desks out and then they will go to another fine meeting to find out what they will be getting for being laid off, do some important paperwork, and then they will be escorted off the Space Center and this all because somebody in D.C. has decided that the money being used for manned space flight can be used better someplace else and that NASA can be better used to make a certain group of people feel better about themselves. Nothing like getting caponized.

Sorry Bsix, but that will be more than enough excitement for me tomorrow and probably for the rest of the year.

I am guessing contractor? They are a small group of thousands of contractors that will be jobless in the coming years. We have seen over a thousand get pink slips and exit dates where I am...

[urroner]

I am guessing contractor? They are a small group of thousands of contractors that will be jobless in the coming years. We have seen over a thousand get pink slips and exit dates where I am...

Right you are and what bothers me is that the whole thing tends to be very political. Anywho, just as everybody was getting ready to go home today and prepare for Black Friday, the contractors got an email telling them that nothing was happening tomorrow, but it had been delayed for an unknown amount of time. I don't know whether to be happy or pissed.

[lostindc]

Right you are and what bothers me is that the whole thing tends to be very political. Anywho, just as everybody was getting ready to go home today and prepare for Black Friday, the contractors got an email telling them that nothing was happening tomorrow, but it had been delayed for an unknown amount of time. I don't know whether to be happy or pissed.

Wow, it is messy to be a contractor right now. The last couple years I thought about jumping out as a contractor just never could take the jump seeing how administrations/politics and the economy can easily land me jobless. God bless them and their families as they await decisions.

[rockslider]

Six,

my deleted review did not compare to your summary anyway.

perfect.

[Scott Lloyd]

Six,

my deleted review did not compare to your summary anyway.

perfect.

Not quite perfect. But then, it was tongue-in-cheek.

His lacked misapplied psycho-babble. It's an improvement over yours in that respect.

[rockslider]

.

[Mudcat]

Here is the "As the Stomach Turns" or "Days of our (Sorry Internet) Lives" plot summary...

I think that Ms. Jack made some crack about an 8-year old FARMS review on the other board.

DCP contacted Ms. Jack via PM with a sarcastic email about how he reread the review and liked it.

Ms. Jack responded with a little potty language and anger telling DCP not to ever contact her again.

Ms. Jack apparently made public characterizations about DCP and his emails on the other board.

DCP then posted the very short email exchange on this message board.

Ms. Jack throws a fit about private emails being made public.

Board war ensues

All sorts of nasty accusations are made about Russell McGregor, the original author of the FARMS review. JP Holding was outted in the FARMS review...no he wasn't...yes he was...no he wasn't...yes he was...his life was put at risk...no he wasn't...yes he was...

DCP emails and apologizes to 'his-life-is-endangered' JP Holding.

JP Holding doesn't really care.

DCP and Ms. Jack make up.

McGregor responds as himself on MADb.

Ms. Jack is homeless.

Ms. Jack is no longer homeless.

McGregor is outted on the other board as [edit].

General hatefest for [edit] over on the other board.

K. Graham posts private emails between he and McGregor on the other message board.

More board war attacks.

JP Holding is an antiMormon...no he isn't...yes he is...no he isn't...

More private emails and identities are disclosed.

More anger.

More accusations.

Whew...I think I have the general plot about right. I hear that soap operas always end on Friday with big drama so as to sustain viewer interest over the weekend.

Tomorrow should be pretty exciting.

Six

Three funnies for you 6.

Though I am completely appreciative of the sincerity and intent of one, Russell McGregor.

It is my hope that this thread.. and the topic in general will manage to disappear, much the same way the Tyrannosaurus Rex, the Great Woolly Mammoth, Beehive Hairdos, 8 track tapes and Velcro wallets did.

Perhaps then and only then can we get back to our rousing games of "Paintball at the LDS Corral","Truth, Truth whose got the Truth?" and my personal favorite "Pin the tail on the (pick a religion or lack thereof)"

The only question I have yet to see asked or answered is, "Who or what was JP holding?"

[Stargazer]

Three funnies for you 6.

Though I am completely appreciative of the sincerity and intent of one, Russell McGregor.

It is my hope that this thread.. and the topic in general will manage to disappear, much the same way the Tyrannosaurus Rex, the Great Woolly Mammoth, Beehive Hairdos, 8 track tapes and Velcro wallets did.

Perhaps then and only then can we get back to our rousing games of "Paintball at the LDS Corral","Truth, Truth whose got the Truth?" and my personal favorite "Pin the tail on the (pick a religion or lack thereof)"

The only question I have yet to see asked or answered is, "Who or what was JP holding?"

Really? I'm surprised! Of course you should realize it upon reflection that JP was left holding the bag.

I've read through this entire thread, and aside from a few moments of comic relief, it has been a complete waste of time. But that's why I'm here on MADB, so let us all press on.

[Ms. Jack]

It's a literary reference. Sorry you missed it.

An Australian friend explained it to me. So you've been comparing me to "an obese, moustachioed, gravel-voiced transvestite," and I'm the one who lacks class?

Those FARMS apologists and their mild, mild witticisms.

And that makes it all good, does it? [snip] But in fact, I was not referring to you, but to the deeply admired Mr Kevin Graham. [sNIP] Yes, and we come back to this: when the vile Mr Graham sticks it to me, yet again, eight years after my error, it garners not a word of protest from you; while, eight years after the fact, that little mistake of mine still calls forth vast outpourings of disgust and vituperation from you and the rabid haters you admire so much.

I am not Kevin Graham, and I am not answering for or taking responsibility for anything he has said or done save what I quoted from him on my blog. When I have disagreements with anything Kevin Graham has done, I discuss them with him in private, a courtesy I give all of my friends.

If you take issue with something Kevin Graham has done, I would suggest you stop cowering on this forum and take it up with him. You know where to find him.

You "fail to see why" I'm not pleased that my wife's name, and other personal details about me, were published on that rather downmarket forum by one of the least pleasant people I know?

The posting of your wife's name was a copy-and-paste accident that Graham quickly corrected. No other personal details about you have been published there that aren't available on the FARMS Web site, and since Dr. Shades allows for free speech on that site, we're allowed to discuss the content of the FARMS Web site. It sounds like you have a problem with free speech.

Evidently there is a great deal you "fail to see."

Yup. Apparently my magical boot-licking sycophant of DCP goggles were destroyed with my other apartment, and while there seem to be plenty of people around here who could furnish me an extra pair, I think I'll pass.

I have set the record straight. What you choose to do about that, whether on your blog or elsewhere, is of little interest to me, except to the extent that it helps me to understand your character better.

You're free to think whatever you like of my character, Russell. You're not someone whose opinion I care about.

The fact remains, however, that Holding was not "outed" in that obscure footnote in my little review, because it contained no information that anybody could not have found in five minutes of googling.

Doesn't matter. If a thousand skeezy paparazzi sites have published the name of the victim in a high-profile rape case, the New York Times will still have egg on their face if they publish it. Likewise, a respectable peer-reviewed academic journal should not be throwing its hat in with the Internet antics of the likes of Farrell Till and Acharya S. It's the principle of the matter, and it's principles that you seem to lack.

And that explains your complete failure to even mildly remonstrate with the hate clique--how, exactly?

What a joke. I'm not a moderator at MDB and I'm not the mother of anyone posting there. On top of that, you still have an account at MDB which you last logged into on Wednesday, July 7. If you have issue with something that's been said or done on MDB, deal with it yourself.

You've missed the point; was it intentional?

You tell me. I don't think you know anything about the business between J. P. Holding and Acharya S other than what you uncritically gleaned from the demonstrably false screed on her Web site.

"Anti-Mormon" doesn't mean "opposed to them as a people," although it can entail that (and does, with some.) It simply means "opposed to the Church of Jesus Christ." Mr Holding wrote a book that does not merely "question the validity of someone's interpretations of the Bible," but directly challenges central LDS doctrines.

Sounds like the mentality of a paranoid whiner to me. There is nothing anti-Mormon or inherently wrong with a member of one missionary faith respectfully critiquing the truth claims of another missionary faith. Francis J. Beckwith even devoted an entire essay to the matter: "Sects in the City: Mormonism and the Philosophical Perils of Being a Missionary Faith.."

It's anti-Mormon, simpliciter. I'm sorry if my mentioning that fact offends you, but there it is.

I'm sorry that your arguments can't stand on the strength of their own merits so that you must rely on thought-terminating rhetoric such as "anti-Mormon." I understand that the counter-cult ministry has a similar problem with use of the word "cult."

Evidently the best you can do. Pity it doesn't say what you originally asserted.

So the Mosser-Owen paper was "a call for better anti-Mormon attacks," but it wasn't anti-Mormon itself? Methinks Mormon apologists are the only ones who are going to do the mental gymnastics required to come to that strained conclusion.

To the denizens of MADB: as I'm satisfied that Mr. McGregor has nothing meaningful to add to this saga, I am done discussing this topic and done participating in new threads on the matter at this forum. Should you feel the need to start any more threads to try and rescue your heroes from their embarrassing blunders in this regard, don't expect me to participate. At best you can look for a reply over on the other forum, where Kevin Graham will be allowed to comment, which sounds like the best thing for everyone since so many people are eager to discuss and engage him.

Adieu.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

To the denizens of MADB: as I'm satisfied that Mr. McGregor has nothing meaningful to add to this saga, I am done discussing this topic and done participating in new threads on the matter at this forum.

I would say that both of you fit this bill.

Should you feel the need to start any more threads to try and rescue your heroes from their embarrassing blunders in this regard, don't expect me to participate.

Right back at you.

At best you can look for a reply over on the other forum, where Kevin Graham will be allowed to comment, which sounds like the best thing for everyone since so many people are eager to discuss and engage him.

Adieu.

Don't you think this is a tad bit of an overstatement? I mean I could care less what Kevin Graham thinks. And who are these "so many people" that are eager to discuss and engage him?

[Bernard Gui]

The level 5 hurricane that has swept through MADB in the form of a discussion on

the real name of JP Holding left some damage in its wake and has moved

into open waters.

However, there is some cleanup to do.

The issue was the supposed outing of JP Holding in a FARMS book review...the

revelation that his real name was Robert Turkel. This traumatic event percolated

for 8 years in the hearts of a few and burst forth recently in all its fury on the internet.

Just a few keyboard strokes, however, revealed the matter had already been settled,

since Mr. Holding had been repeatedly outed by a number of internet debaters.

Furthermore, in his own words, (2002, at the time of the FARMS review) he didn't care any more

if his real name were known. He himself had put it on the internet, so what was

previously a serious matter of confidentiality was now inconsequential.

To a few people, however, this incident raised important ethical questions and

doubts about the integrity of the Maxwell Institute and some of its members.

Thus, the storm broke when participants crossed paths after those many years.

In addition, MADB's integrity came into question in that any effort of the complainant

to tell the full story here would be edited or shut down.

To clean up the damage, we should know the truth about the matter of Mr. Holding's

name (he had it legally changed from Robert Turkel to JP Holding in 2007) being

outed by insensitive people at FARMS.

The truth of the matter is: they did not.

An apology is due.

Was the complainant shut down or censored here at MADB? No.

That allegation should be removed from the internet.

An explanation of the contradictions between the complainant's claims

and Mr. Holding's story should be forthcoming to help clear away the debris.

Since 2002, Mr. Holding had no objections to having his real name revealed.

Why is it an issue now? Why was it ever an issue?

If I have misrepresented anything here, I would certainly welcome corrrection

or clarification.

Bernard

[rockslider]

...

However, there is some cleanup to do.

...

And the Karate Kid saga continues:

Miyagi, Sato, Chozen, Daniel san and the horribly tattered honor

I believe the time has come, will everyone please get out your drums.

[Avatar4321]

I've been reading through this thread, amazed at some of the contention on here. But one thing keeps bugging me.

Why does it matter What JP Holding's name is or isn't? I don't see how it's at all relevant to any current discussion on mormonism nor why it's the inspiration for such contention. Did I miss a memo?