Liar, Liar Pants On Fire

[frankenstein]

Man this bunny just keeps on going and going...

considering your pontification on Romans 14, what is the purpose of this thread? And would it not seem that Elder Taylor is in violation of Romans 14 and Article of Faith 11?

[wenglund]

Do you seriously not understand the difference between an accusation and a question? For the most part these men asked Taylor to explain what he knew of these matters. The fact is Boggs was shot in the head in a failed assassination attempt. It was the pro-Mormon Wasp magazine that published, "Boggs is undoubtedly killed according to report; but who did the noble deed remains to be found out." So clearly Mormons wanted Boggs dead and had no problem seeing him assassinated (Joseph Smith's brother was the Wasp's editor). Porter Rockwell, the notorious Danite, was arrested and spent eight months in jail on charges of conspiracy to assassinate Boggs. So no, it isn't like their questions were created out of whole cloth. They were asking Taylor what he knew about these matters.

If Taylor is trying to say Caswall lied about this then it is Taylor who is lying... again. By the way, didn't you just present a link to all this? Do you think we can't just click the link and see the full context for ourselves? So far nothing you have posted has anything to do with the fact that John Taylor intentionally deceived his audience on the subject of polygamy and that he flat out lied about the Haven interview, attributing to her comments she never made. You should have entitled the thread "stuff I think is funny from the debate based on my miscomprehension."

As always, your comments are fair and gracious and matter-of fact and the model to which we all aspire. Your logic is impeccable, and your style highly persuasive and unassailable. This is why you stand head and shoulders above the rest when it comes to credibility. This is why people flock to read every word from your powerful key strokes, and why every thread you start and participate in is endearing and enduring. Is it any wonder that you invariably mop up the floor with your opponents--at least those you deem worthy of your esteemed attention?

But, then, I am LDS, which, to your unrivalled scholastic mind, means I must be lying. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 2, 2011 by wenglund

[Daniel Peterson]

If you are trying to discredit Kevin, that's a bad example--Thomas Sowell is a liar--the way Sowell brazenly blamed the housing collapse on the Community Reinvestment Act is a nice narrative, but it is absolutely false—so clearly false that there is no way Sowell could really believe it.

We can discuss this point further on Shades' board.

Not interested. I don't know anything about the CRA in general, nor about Sowell's position on it in particular, and I don't particularly care about the subject. And I'm headed off to Yellowstone tomorrow morning.

I don't think, though, that Dr. Sowell's general public reputation is that of a liar -- though he's certainly controversial, he's a very good economist and a productive writer -- and I espouse the view (which, as a practical matter, Mr. Graham apparently does not) that one can be wrong without being a liar (or an idiot or a moron or a hypocrite or an incompetent).

To put my point as clearly as I can make it, without irony or subtlety: Mr. Graham tosses the terms liar, idiot, moron, hypocrite, and incompetent around far too much for civil conversation.

[Bill Hamblin]

[quote name='Daniel Peterson' timestamp='1314923287' post='1209042547'

To put my point as clearly as I can make it, without irony or subtlety: Mr. Graham tosses the terms liar, idiot, moron, hypocrite, and incompetent around far too much for civil conversation.

[frankenstein]

who has the greater responsibility to set the standard of discourse in these situations?

Kevin

OR

the bearer of the Melchizedek Priesthood, who belongs to the only true and living Church on earth, which Church has a Prophet who speaks directly for God to all the inhabitants of earth? (presumable those who are mods but post under a different name than their mod name)

When the accounting in done do any of you think Jesus will excuse those of His Priesthood who respond "Well he did it first and more often"? I tend to doubt that Christ will hold those of His true and living Church to a lesser standard simply because the world/natural man was more abundant and behaved a certain way more often.

and before anyone responds with some statement that Christ used harsh language, I would direct to that language and for you to read said statements applying the advice of Nephi to "liken the scriptures". Christ most certainly wasn't speaking to Kevin when he referred to the "religious leaders" as whited walls and so forth.

Edited September 2, 2011 by frankenstein

[wenglund]

who has the greater responsibility to set the standard of discourse in these situations?

Kevin

OR

the bearer of the Melchizedek Priesthood, who belongs to the only true and living Church on earth, which Church has a Prophet who speaks directly for God to all the inhabitants of earth? (presumable those who are mods but post under a different name than their mod name)

I have thought that behavioral choices during general public discourse, as opposed to in cases of sacred ordinances, ought to be a function of what works best, rather than what priesthood one may or may not hold or what Church and leadership one may or may not belong to. But, that may just be me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Loran Blood]

Everybody with whom Kevin disagrees is almost immediately revealed to be a liar, a moron, an idiot, an incompetent, and/or a hypocrite.

The more I point this out, the more Kevin points out to me that I'm delusional and the entire thing is a myth.

Perhaps I'm getting a bit old, but Kevin seems to live on these boards, infused with a single minded, heated-to-a-cherry-red desire to impugn and tear down everything LDS. Not just a few doctrines or ideas with which he disagrees, but the Church in its entirety. Every teaching, every practice, every policy, and the integrity and morality of nearly each and every one of its defenders, from each and every General Authority to each and every apologist of whatever kind in whatever venue.

I will give him this, he is dedicated and persistent.

If one dares to disagree with Kevin, it's never a matter of if. It's only a question of when. You will be unmasked!

I'm more than happy to walk the plank with Dr. Sowell.

Edited September 2, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Loran Blood]

And here I thought this thread was about Taylor, not Kevin.

What thread have you seen recently, in which Kevin participated, that didn't end up, ultimately, being about Kevin?

And please, I mean this in all seriousness.

Edited September 2, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Ares]

These boards are not an LDS priesthood lesson.

Everyone who posts here is responsbile for setting the tone and following the Board Guidelines. Some obviously love pushing the boundaries.

LDS, former-LDS, anti-LDS and non-LDS alike have been repremanded for bad behavior at one time or another. In fact the moderators go out of our way to provide a forum where critics and faithful LDS alike can dialogue. We also allow posters to respond appropriately if their sacred cows are being tipped or if other posters are getting personal. Believe it or not the moderating team assumes people will behave like adults for the most part.

That being said if you don't like the way you are being treated by other posters 1) check your own tone first 2) use the report button.

[Loran Blood]

It was the pro-Mormon Wasp magazine that published, "Boggs is undoubtedly killed according to report; but who did the noble deed remains to be found out." So clearly Mormons wanted Boggs dead and had no problem seeing him assassinated

Just for consideration, and given the conditions and historical context of events as they were then transpiring around the time of the extermination order, given that the Constitution of the Unted States had, for all intents and purposes, been suspended for Latter day Saints, and their civil rights removed almost in totality, and given the near genocidal intentions of Boggs, could emotions not have been such among many LDS that they would not have been particularly disturbed had Boggs come to his timely end?

Porter Rockwell, the notorious Danite,

Is this serious? Its like reading the worst of the lurid 19th century Mormon hate literature or modern evangelicals like Martin or Decker.

If Taylor is trying to say Caswall lied about this then it is Taylor who is lying... again.

Is this then, one of those "neener, neener, neener" moments?

Edited September 2, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Zakuska]

who has the greater responsibility to set the standard of discourse in these situations?

Kevin

OR

the bearer of the Melchizedek Priesthood, who belongs to the only true and living Church on earth, which Church has a Prophet who speaks directly for God to all the inhabitants of earth? (presumable those who are mods but post under a different name than their mod name)

When the accounting in done do any of you think Jesus will excuse those of His Priesthood who respond "Well he did it first and more often"? I tend to doubt that Christ will hold those of His true and living Church to a lesser standard simply because the world/natural man was more abundant and behaved a certain way more often.

and before anyone responds with some statement that Christ used harsh language, I would direct to that language and for you to read said statements applying the advice of Nephi to "liken the scriptures". Christ most certainly wasn't speaking to Kevin when he referred to the "religious leaders" as whited walls and so forth.

Well Moses held the Priesthood and he killed the Egyptian and buried his body in the sand. Calling all Danites.... Calling all Danites.... We've got one who is stepping out of line.

<Total Tongue in Cheek>

[Loran Blood]

If you are trying to discredit Kevin, that's a bad example--Thomas Sowell is a liar--the way Sowell brazenly blamed the housing collapse on the Community Reinvestment Act is a nice narrative, but it is absolutely false—so clearly false that there is no way Sowell could really believe it.

Well, there certainly are liars about, but Sowell isn't one of them.

Why are you trying to provoke a meltdown? Is there some reason you'd like to see this thread locked?

[Xander]

It's really about Kevin, of course. Come on, counselor. Come to the party.

It must be. I come back to the forum after a day's absence, only to see that you've created a hate-fest by invoking my name again. I've seen something like a dozen posts referencing my name by a half dozen people who are only too eager to swallow your misrepresentations.

Everybody with whom Kevin disagrees is almost immediately revealed to be a liar, a moron, an idiot, an incompetent, and/or a hypocrite. This is completely predictable.

I see you're back to the usual falsehoods Dan. Do I need to list all the people I have disagreed with, whom I have not accused of being a "liar, a moron, an idiot, an incompetemt, and/or a hypocrite"? Better yet, why don't you go ahead and back up your claims, since that is how the burden of proof works. I know you hate doing this, because we both know you haven't any idea what you're talking about, but just for fun, humorous us. Go ahead and back up your statement that "everybody" I have disagreed with is eventually attacked in such a way. We both know you're just trying to poison the well, because that is the only way you know how to deal with arguments you cannot refute. Attacking me is the only thing you're left with, and you know you can get away with it over here. You're also trying to derail this discussion, which you seemed to have accomplished rather easily since no one is talking about John Taylor's deception anymore. You have everyone talking about me. And of course, the mods won't do anything about it because, well, you know why. It is the same reason Bill can get away with calling me delusional, whereas I was reprimanded and threatened with exile for using that word. That is why you ran over here to have your little attack Kevin session. I'll be banned for simply defending myself against your false accusations.

Kevin just exposed me as a hypocrite this morning, over on a board that is more ideologically congenial to him.

Yes, and the reason you ran over here to complain about it is because this board is more ideologically congenial to you. So thanks again for supporting my claim of your hypocrisy.

(I'm not sure whether this is the first time that he's revealed me to be a hypocrite or not. He outed me as an incompetent many years ago, of course.)

Call for references. When have I called you incompetent? If you cannot provide any evidence that I have done this to "everybody" you should at least be able to demonstrate where I have said this of you. Right?

And, extending his judgments from religion into his (I think relatively new) leftist political ideology, our genial polymath friend has also recently disclosed that Thomas Sowell is a liar.

Yes, and I proved that he is. He doesn't just make a mistakes, but he keeps propagating his mistakes in light of numerous corrections by those in the know, proving he is not interested in the truth. He is only interested in getting paid for feeding ammunition to Right Wing bigots like Limbaugh, Beck Coulter and of course the FOX News propaganda machine in general.

Hence, Kevin says, it is unnecessary to read what Sowell has written prior to condemning it.

Not exactly. Once you've read enough of an author to know he is not trustworthy, there is nothing wrong with condemning future mantra when you already known what it is about. After all, isn't that what FARMS has been doing for years? It expects faithful members not to purchase or borrow or read any of the numerous anti-Mormon books it "reviews." And that is the whole point. It reads them so we won't have to! Just knowing the author is anti-Mormon is all an LDS member needs to know before condemning it. And you know this is true. So again, thanks for unwittingly proving my point about your hypocrisy.

If one dares to disagree with Kevin, it's never a matter of if. It's only a question of when. You will be unmasked!

Oh really? Tell that to the numerous atheists I have knocked heads with over on the other forum. Or the numerous Evangelicals or the numerous ex-Mormons who have never been called a liar or a moron. For that matter, tell that to the numerous LDS members I have debated through the years. David Bokovoy would probably be surprised to hear I think he is an idiot or a liar. This would probably be news to Brian Hauglid or Don Bradley or Blair Hodges or a number of LDS members on both forums. So why don't you back up your claims with evidence. Until you do, you have no business with your eternal whining about how you're such a victim of unjust persecution by the likes of Scratch. The fact is I have very friendly relationships with a number of LDS intellectuals. If you can't make it into that group then maybe, just maybe, the deficiency is on your part? But no, of course not. You're innocent. I'm just a rabid anti-Mormon seething with hatred. That about complete's the picture, right? Isn't that faith-promoting enough for ya?

Know this. I have never called anyone a liar without proving it first. I can appreciate the fact that this goes for some people you call dear friends, and it also goes for some of your favorite political commentators and obviously some of your religious icons. But that hardly encapsulates "everyone" I have ever disagreed with. All you're doing now is trying to offer some kind of defense for your favorite people, without refuting the evidence I have provided against them. For example, you're not prepared to make an intellectual argument regarding the CRA, as Thomas Sowell lied about. Nor are you prepared to make an intellectual argument defending the misogynistic remarks by William Schryver. Nor are you prepared to make an intellectual argument with respect to the numerous lies your friends have told. No, you're not, and you know you're not, which is why you're left with these school yard antics of running to your safe corner of your favorite sandbox, where you can play all the petulant games you want, knowing perfectly well your supporters will fawn over every word you say, no matter how fallacious they may be.

You must care nothing about your credibility anymore.

Edited September 2, 2011 by Xander

[Xander]

Furthermore, I should state for the record that a few years ago I rushed to serve as a character witness on Dan Peterson's behalf when he was accused of being a liar on some anti-Mormon blog. Dan emailed me and thanked me for standing up for him, and that it meant a lot coming from someone who obviously had no bias towards him as an ally. I said even though we disagreed on numerous issues, I never believed he was a liar and I had no problem saying it.

Did you forget this Dan, or do you need me to post your email as a reminder?

Edited September 2, 2011 by Xander

[Bill Hamblin]

It must be. I come back to the forum after a day's absence, only to see that you've created a hate-fest by invoking my name again. I've seen something like a dozen posts referencing my name by a half dozen people who are only too eager to swallow your misrepresentations.

I see you're back to the usual falsehoods Dan. Do I need to list all the people I have disagreed with, whom I have not accused of being a "liar, a moron, an idiot, an incompetemt, and/or a hypocrite"? Better yet, why don't you go ahead and back up your claims, since that is how the burden of proof works. I know you hate doing this, because we both know you haven't any idea what you're talking about, but just for fun, humorous [sic] us. Go ahead and back up your statement that "everybody" I have disagreed with is eventually attacked in such a way. We both know you're just trying to poison the well, because that is the only way you know how to deal with arguments you cannot refute. Attacking me is the only thing you're left with, and you know you can get away with it over here. You're also trying to derail this discussion, which you seemed to have accomplished rather easily since no one is talking about John Taylor's deception anymore. You have everyone talking about me. And of course, the mods won't do anything about it because, well, you know why. It is the same reason Bill can get away with calling me delusional, whereas I was reprimanded and threatened with exile for using that word. That is why you ran over here to have you little attack Kevin session. I'll be banned for simply defending myself against your false accusations.

Yes, and the reason you ran over here to complain about it is because this board is more ideologically congenial to you. So thanks again for supporting my claim of your hypocrisy.

Call for references. When have I called you incompetent? If you cannot provide any evidence that I have done this to "everybody" you should at least be able to demonstrate where I have said this of you. Right?

Yes, and I proved that he is. He doesn't just make a mistakes, but he keeps propagating his mistakes in light of numerous corrections by those in the know, proving he is not interested in the truth. He is only interested in getting paid for feeding ammunition to Right Wing bigots like Limbaugh, Beck Coulter and of course the FOX News propaganda machine in general.

Not exactly. Once you've read enough of an author to know he is not trustworthy, there is nothing wrong with condemning future mantra when you already known what it is about. After all, isn't that what FARMS has been doing for years? It expects faithful members not to purchase or borrow or read any of the numerous anti-Mormon books it "reviews." And that is the whole point. It reads them so we won't have to! Just knowing the author is anti-Mormon is all an LDS member needs to know before condemning it. And you know this is true. So again, thanks for unwittingly proving my point about your hypocrisy.

Oh really? Tell that to the numerous atheists I have knocked heads with over on the other forum. Or the numerous Evangelicals or the numerous ex-Mormons who have never been called a liar or a moron. For that matter, tell that to the numerous LDS members I have debated through the years. David Bokovoy would probably be surprised to hear I think he is an idiot or a liar. This would probably be news to Brian Hauglid or Don Bradley or Blair Hodges or a number of LDS members on both forums. So why don't you back up your claims with evidence. Until you do, you have no business with your eternal whining about how you're such a victim of unjust persecution by the likes of Scratch. The fact is I have very friendly relationships with a number of LDS intellectuals. If you can't make it into that group then maybe, just maybe, the deficiency is on your part? But no, of course not. You're innocent. I'm just a rabid anti-Mormon seething with hatred. That about complete's the picture, right? Isn't that faith-promoting enough for ya?

Know this. I have never called anyone a liar without proving it first. I can appreciate the fact that this goes for some people you call dear friends, and it also goes for some of your favorite political commentators and obviously some of your religious icons. But that hardly encapsulates "everyone" I have ever disagreed with. All you're doing now is trying to offer some kind of defense for your favorite people, without refuting the evidence I have provided against them. For example, you're not prepared to make an intellectual argument regarding the CRA, as Thomas Sowell lied about. Nor are you prepared to make an intellectual argument defending the misogynistic remarks by William Schryver. Nor are you prepared to make an intellectual argument with respect to the numerous lies your friends have told. No, you're not, and you know you're not, which is why you're left with these school yard antics of running to your safe corner of your favorite sandbox, where you can play all the petulant games you want, knowing perfectly well your supporters will fawn over every word you say, no matter how fallacious they may be.

You must care nothing about your credibility anymore.

Did Kevin just call Dan a liar, hypocrite, and idiot? I believe he did. That certainly goes far towards demonstrating that Kevin doesn't call people liars, hypocrites and idiots.

At any rate, I believe the hyperbole of the use of the word "everyone" escaped KEvin. (And, no doubt, I am now in for an endless litany of spinning and parsing! Let the quibbling begin!)

PS, Note that my use of the word "endless" here is hyperbole. I do not mean that literally you will endlessly quibble with me. (Although, to anyone who bothers to read it, it will certainly seem endless.) I am well aware that only God's quibbling can be endless.

[Calm]

who has the greater responsibility to set the standard of discourse in these situations?

Kevin

OR

the bearer of the Melchizedek Priesthood, who belongs to the only true and living Church on earth, which Church has a Prophet who speaks directly for God to all the inhabitants of earth? (presumable those who are mods but post under a different name than their mod name)

When the accounting in done do any of you think Jesus will excuse those of His Priesthood who respond "Well he did it first and more often"? I tend to doubt that Christ will hold those of His true and living Church to a lesser standard simply because the world/natural man was more abundant and behaved a certain way more often.

and before anyone responds with some statement that Christ used harsh language, I would direct to that language and for you to read said statements applying the advice of Nephi to "liken the scriptures". Christ most certainly wasn't speaking to Kevin when he referred to the "religious leaders" as whited walls and so forth.

Let me get this clear. You are telling people to give Kevin a pass because he's not expected to be as good as a believing, active Melchizedek Priesthood holder?

Since I am not a priesthood holder at all, let along the Melchizedek, I guess that means I can act like a total jerk and get away with it.

Edited September 2, 2011 by calmoriah

[Daniel Peterson]

I'm headed up to Yellowstone tomorrow!

I wouldn't have bothered responding to Kevin's post above anyway, but, just for the record, I wouldn't have been able to respond very easily over the next few days even if I had wanted to.

In any event, I concede defeat. Kevin has demonstrated that my complaint about his intemperate language -- his wearisomely monotonous tendency to refer to those who disagree with him as liars, morons, idiots, hypocrites, incompetents, and cowards (how could I ever have forgotten his propensity to call others cowards?) -- and his inclination toward waging rhetorical total war was totally unfounded.

.

Edited September 2, 2011 by Daniel Peterson

[Bill Hamblin]

I'm headed up to Yellowstone tomorrow!

I wouldn't have bothered responding to Kevin's post above anyway, but, just for the record, I wouldn't have been able to respond very easily over the next few days even if I had wanted to.

In any event, I concede defeat. Kevin has demonstrated that my complaint about his intemperate language -- his wearisomely monotonous tendency to refer to those who disagree with him as liars, morons, idiots, hypocrites, incompetents, and cowards (how could I ever have forgotten his propensity to call others cowards?) -- and his inclination toward waging rhetorical total war was totally unfounded.

You lying, moronic, incompetent, hypocritical idiot! How dare you call Kevin's post an intemperate rant?! His disposition and writing is a model of subtle, genteel prose, generously spiced with a sparkling sprinkling of humor and wit!

And of course, your claim to be going to Yellowstone is an obvious lie. The truth is you are fleeing in terror from the relentless verities exposed by Xander the Truthful!

Edited September 2, 2011 by Bill Hamblin

[Ares]

Automatic generated message

This topic has been closed by a moderator.

Reason: It should be obvious

Kind regards,

Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board Staff