Kishkumen Is Vile - Mocking The Church

[sethpayne]

Thanks Seth, for your comments. I think you've identified the main criticism made by Scratch and Kishkumen. I think their criticisms may be valid in some instances, but the problem is that they are so over the top in their method of attack that their message is lost.

I think there is truth to this.

They have been some of the worst offenders in attacking the person, rather than the scholarship. And, many times, when attacking the scholarship, they've done so in such a mocking and dismissive way, that their criticisms are invalidated by their method of delivery.

I agree. The tone of a critique can often overshadow the critique itself.

Most likely, they would turn around and say this was the case with LDS apologists--but, in my opinion, there is no comparison as to who is the biggest offender. Also, there is a very important question to ask; Which 'cause' is just? What 'motivates' those on either side? Why do they do it? These are valid questions to ask and to think about

Great points. I have a theory but again, I'm thinking out loud and just running it up the flag pole. I know, for example, that Kishkumen has a real problem with Dan's "Text and Context" essay. Why? Because it makes an issue of homosexuality being a negative influence on a person's religious scholarship (although Dan does make it clear he isn't accusing anyone at Signature of immoral behavior). To Kishkumen and others, making an issue of sexuality is the same as using race or gender to diminish scholarship. You can imagine the virulent reaction to even a hint that a woman's gender may be a negative influence on their scholarship. On the issue of homosexuality, Dan and Kish have completely divergent views. So while Dan considers homosexuality a moral issue, Kish sees it as a characteristic just as integral to a person as their gender or race. So, when Kish uses strong language to criticize Dan I think that, partly, it may be a visceral reaction akin to what we might see from women or minorities if the discussion had been about race or gender.

Personally, I think there is a place for both. I've enjoyed reading books and articles in both styles.

I agree. There is a place for both. While I strongly disagree with much of what Christopher Hitchens had to say, I respect him as a polemicist. His polemics raised important questions about Kissinger and others .... The guy did his homework. I read Lou's "Prying into Palmer" as a very effective polemic. The point of the essay was to cast doubt on Palmer the man -- with the exception of the Golden Pot discussion.

Anyway, my point is that there is a place for both. If I want to study arguments for and against Theism the last place I would turn is to Hitchens or Dawkins. I'd turn to to Plantiga, Flew or Mackie. I turn to Hitchens to help dispel politically correct myths in an aggressive, witty, biting, and clever way.

I think there may be times when exposing the person is a valid way to point out that what they 'say' is not who they really are or what they really think. 'By their fruits shall ye know them' not only refers to works but also to what motivates someone. I think the in depth look at Palmer in 'Prying into Palmer' was necessary for the reader to clearly understand the author and understand his work.

I see where you are coming from. When I read Palmer's book I wanted to see an analysis of the book's contents. Palmer could be Satan himself but still write something that was accurate ... or not. That is one of the reason's I enjoyed the MS interview with Richard Bushman. He very gently disassembles some of Palmer's weaker arguments. I think our differing expectations reflect the need for both approaches because, I would say some Latter-day Saints do care about the faithfulness of the author and so having the author's Church cred called into question gives them reason enough to know that the book would likely offend the sensibilities of devout Latter-day Saints.

Unfortunately, this also means that some Saints buy into a lot of garbage because the author has Church cred. This is one aspect of FARMS I always appreciated. When poorly researched/argued books about the Book of Mormon were written by faithful Latter-day Saints, the books were rightly critiqued.

I think your analysis is concise and valuable and if you've ever slipped into 'snotty and 'snarky', I've never seen it.

Ask Bill! He can tell you just how snotty and snarky I can be. I am trying to turn the corner though.

I also think your desire that we change the direction and end the downward spiral this argument is headed in, is wise and would be the best thing that could happen. But, movement on both sides will be necessary for this to happen and I'm not sure who would make the first move to try and turn this around. A lot of damage has been done, and when it comes to the need to protect our faith, our religion and to stand up for and defend the gospel of Jesus Christ, it makes it much harder to risk the consequences of not doing what may be necessary in Defending the Kingdom and the members of Christ's church.

Again, I completely understand where you are coming from but I think it is very important to note that criticizing Dan/Bill/Lou or any other individual member is not necessarily a criticism of the Church. Being virulently anti-Dan/Bill/Lou, does not equate to being anti-Mormon. In fact, the only criticism I can think of that Scratch has made against the Church itself was in regards to City Creek. I'm sure Kish has been critical of other things but I can't recall them at the moment ....

In any case, I think I've probably inserted myself into this drama too much already and am looking forward to seeing it blow over .....

Thanks for your thoughts, AI.

Seth

[sethpayne]

Seth:

I know that Kishkumen and others dislike a substantial portion of what I and some of my associates have published.

I think their charges against us are grossly exaggerated when not altogether misconceived, and I'm willing to defend our approach.

But Kishkumen has long since gone far beyond discussing such differences, which could be done civilly even if the upshot were merely an agreement to disagree, and far past civility. He has become hateful -- and, I think demonstrably, far harsher and more personal and less charitable than my friends and I would ever think of being.

I'm serious, I'm not just striking a pose, when I say that I find it extraordinarily sad.

Thanks, Dan.

I am looking forward to when we can discuss some of these disagreements in a less hostile environment.

[Bill Hamblin]

I agree. There is a place for both. While I strongly disagree with much of what Christopher Hitchens had to say, I respect him as a polemicist. His polemics raised important questions about Kissinger and others .... The guy did his homework. I read Lou's "Prying into Palmer" as a very effective polemic. The point of the essay was to cast doubt on Palmer the man -- with the exception of the Golden Pot discussion.

Have you considered that there might be a legitimate reason to critique Palmer's claims about himself as a member and as an institute "director"?

In the author bio, blurb, title, and marketing strategy, Signature and Palmer made a clear decision to present Palmer as a faithful LDS institute director who is simply "telling the truth" about Joseph Smith. This is, in fact, completely false on all counts. Palmer and Signature decided to try to make Palmer's "street cred" as an LDS institute "director" and teacher an issue to legitimize Palmer's claims and boost Signature sales. When that happened the legitimacy of the claims of Signature and Palmer became an issue, and it needed to be addressed. That's all Lou is doing. And it needed to be done because of the false claims presented about Palmer's credentials and insider status.

Edited March 22, 2013 by Bill Hamblin

[sethpayne]

Have you considered that there might be a legitimate reason to critique Palmer's claims about himself as a member and as an institute "director"?

Hi Bill,

Absolutely. I think they way Signature titled and marketed the book invited this type of critique. *Personally* I prefer reviews that dive into the content more than the author, but I can completely understand why some would feel this essay necessary and helpful.

In the author bio, blurb, title, and marketing strategy, Signature and Palmer made a clear decision to present Palmer as a faithful LDS institute director who is simply "telling the truth" about Joseph Smith. This is, in fact, completely false on all counts. Palmer and Signature decided to try to make Palmer's "street cred" as an LDS institute "director" and teacher an issue to legitimize Palmer's claims and boost Signature sales. When that happened the legitimacy of the claims of Signature and Palmer became an issue, and it needed to be addressed. That's all Lou is doing. And it needed to be done because of the false claims presented about Palmer's credentials and insider status.

Honestly, I think Lou overplayed the whole "Insider" title issue. It was a marketing gimmick and any argument about what constitutes an insider is only going to result in subjective judgements. As a life-long member who served a mission, has taught institute etc.... am I a Mormon insider? Perhaps in one sense as I'm quite familiar with mainstream Mormon theology etc... Am I an "insider" in the sense of member of the Twelve is? Of course not. I think Lou's focus on the title was overplayed. Are you an insider? Sure. Dan? Sure. The problem is there is no objective definition of what constitues an insider. In any case, it was a marketing gimmick and it worked. The title generated so much discussion that exposure of the book was greatly increased.

Also, what is the objective definition of "faithful?" Palmer was active, paid his tithing, went to the Temple etc.... Perhaps he was developing unorthodox beliefs but does belief, or the lack thereof make someone not faithful?

Again, Signature simply used an effective marketing technique. They used words with no clear objective definition on purpose. This is what marketers do! Heck, I've done it when working on marketing copy.

But to your main point: I think there is a place for Lou's essay. Obviously it helps many members get a better grip on Palmer. I'm simply pointing out that other members (like me) may not really care about Palmers past or Church cred. Apologetics can be a big tent.

Seth

[rongo]

As a life-long member who served a mission, has taught institute etc.... am I a Mormon insider?

Your doubts and issues with the Church notwithstanding, Seth, there's a big difference between where you are at (with respect to being an "insider") and Palmer's *behavior.* The Paul Pry, writing and secretly disseminating apostate material under a nom de plume, creates a big difference between you having "taught institute" and Palmer having "taught institute." Dollars to doughnuts that your overt and covert behavior towards the Church was different from Palmer's. You probably weren't relegated to prison ministry with restrictions on teaching doctrine while you "taught institute" (simply out of kindness to allow retirement to be reached) because of orthodoxy and apostasy concerns, either. People who want the Church to look bad howl when this is brought up, but the fact that there are institute teachers, and there are institute teachers, is an important consideration when weighing "teaching institute" in terms of insider status. Isn't it?

Also, what is the objective definition of "faithful?" Palmer was active, paid his tithing, went to the Temple etc....

I don't know that he attended his meetings, paid his tithing, or went to the Temple (I also don't know that he didn't). Given his clandestine apostasy issues and behavior, I wouldn't be surprised either way. But, I'm not sure that we can assume out of hand that he did, given what we do know (Paul Pry, demotion and restrictions, etc.)

Perhaps he was developing unorthodox beliefs but does belief, or the lack thereof make someone not faithful?

I think his actions give plenty of call to describe him as not faithful, without considering his developing unorthodox beliefs.

[sethpayne]

Your doubts and issues with the Church notwithstanding, Seth, there's a big difference between where you are at (with respect to being an "insider") and Palmer's *behavior.* The Paul Pry, writing and secretly disseminating apostate material under a nom de plume, creates a big difference between you having "taught institute" and Palmer having "taught institute." Dollars to doughnuts that your overt and covert behavior towards the Church was different from Palmer's. You probably weren't relegated to prison ministry with restrictions on teaching doctrine while you "taught institute" (simply out of kindness to allow retirement to be reached) because of orthodoxy and apostasy concerns, either. People who want the Church to look bad howl when this is brought up, but the fact that there are institute teachers, and there are institute teachers, is an important consideration when weighing "teaching institute" in terms of insider status. Isn't it?

I don't know that he attended his meetings, paid his tithing, or went to the Temple (I also don't know that he didn't). Given his clandestine apostasy issues and behavior, I wouldn't be surprised either way. But, I'm not sure that we can assume out of hand that he did, given what we do know (Paul Pry, demotion and restrictions, etc.)

I think his actions give plenty of call to describe him as not faithful, without considering his developing unorthodox beliefs.

HI Rongo,

Thanks for your reply. I don't want to defend Palmer simply because I don't know enough about his history/beliefs to do so. But let's go with your assessment.

The point I was trying to make is that your judgements are based on subjective definitions. This certainly doesn't make you wrong. If my definition of an insider or being "faithful" differs, then we get into a situation where we argue about subjective definitions -- a mostly fruitless exercise!

What would you think of a rebuttal that focussed on the marketing gimmick aspect of the title and the positioning of Palmer? "Marketing gimmick" is also a subjectively defined term but I think gaining broad consensus on its meaning is easier than on the term insider.

Seth

[Jersey Girl]

In any case, I think I've probably inserted myself into this drama too much already and am looking forward to seeing it blow over .....

Thanks for your thoughts, AI.

Seth

Blow over? These types of situations will never blow over, Seth, not unless both "sides", actually get smart and realize how incredibly unproductive this brand of discourse really is. Over the years, I have watched as associations and friendships have been broken in favor of the "side". Is "all this" so bloody important that folks have to essentially morph each other into caricatures of what they dislike most inside or outside of the Church?

I'm reminded of a line from a favorite DVD..."Everybody for the group. Who's the group for?"

The answer to that is that the group is for nobody. It does not good for anyone in their life, adds no meaning to the experience of the individual.

Life is so filled with great riches to be had and enjoyed by each of us. Family, friends, meaningful work, the opportunity to use our gifts to the betterment of the human family. easing the pain of the human condition, and reaching out to others.

The only reaching out I see on both sides of late, and actually for years ongoing, is the reaching out to smack the other guy in the face, and people spending their heartbeats trying to harm each other and add stress to our already busy lives. I don't overlook the fact that I am one who has been as guilty of this as anyone else.

What possible good comes from this?

None, Seth. None at all.

People, you have brains. How about use them for something intentional and purposeful that is positive and contributes something to the guy on the other side of the screen?

How about build something instead of being so hell bent on destruction?

Whatever.

All good learning and personal growth is a product of our relationships and so is internal and spiritual decay. From what I have seen and experienced, the "sides" and the "groups" have decided in favor of the latter.

It is insanity.

*A Jersey Girl steps down from her soapbox*

Edited March 23, 2013 by Jersey Girl

[escott3564]

Blow over? These types of situations will never blow over, Seth, not unless both "sides", actually get smart and realize how incredibly unproductive this brand of discourse really is. Over the years, I have watched as associations and friendships have been broken in favor of the "side". Is "all this" so bloody important that folks have to essentially morph each other into caricatures of what they dislike most inside or outside of the Church?

I'm reminded of a line from a favorite DVD..."Everybody for the group. Who's the group for?"

The answer to that is that the group is for nobody. It does not good for anyone in their life, adds no meaning to the experience of the individual.

Life is so filled with great riches to be had and enjoyed by each of us. Family, friends, meaningful work, the opportunity to use our gifts to the betterment of the human family. easing the pain of the human condition, and reaching out to others.

The only reaching out I see on both sides of late, and actually for years ongoing, is the reaching out to smack the other guy in the face, and people spending their heartbeats trying to harm each other and add stress to our already busy lives. I don't overlook the fact that I am one who has been as guilty of this as anyone else.

What possible good comes from this?

None, Seth. None at all.

People, you have brains. How about use them for something intentional and purposeful that is positive and contributes something to the guy on the other side of the screen?

How about build something instead of being so hell bent on destruction?

Whatever.

All good learning and personal growth is a product of our relationships and so is internal and spiritual decay. From what I have seen and experienced, the "sides" and the "groups" have decided in favor of the latter.

It is insanity.

*A Jersey Girl steps down from her soapbox*

This, my friends, is why I love this girl so much. HUGS

No one should wonder why she is my Moderator on Geeks.

I have been extremely distressed by the goings on as of late.

What amazes me is that simply because I decided to try to make amends with Pahoran and Jullian, who I have admittedly feuded with for years, I am now on the MDB hit list. My friendship with Dan has been a bee in their bonnet for years and another frustration. What is amusing about that is that Dan and I have NOT agreed on everything. I completely disagreed with him on how he handled the Eric issue, but we managed to handle that disagreement without (shock!) attacking each other and (shock again!) spoke to each other in a respectful manner.

I am now starting to understand how Dan has felt for the past six years as "Lance Peters" has now claimed to know me in real life and stated rather scary comments my way.

I will say that Kish, in spite of some of our differences, and some misconceptions he has had about how things went on my private board, is a good person, and I consider him a friend. He has not personally attacked me in any way and I appreciate that.

[Paloma]

All good learning and personal growth is a product of our relationships and so is internal and spiritual decay. From what I have seen and experienced, the "sides" and the "groups" have decided in favor of the latter.

I have to agree with Jersey Girl about the tremendous value of relationships.

I've pondered the (to me) unthinkable damage that occurs in civil war, where brother fights against brother, or in any situation where 'causes' or 'doctrinaire differences' separate people who are or should otherwise be 'family'.

Can or should anything ever trump the priority of relationships?

To me, that's what Jesus' words about "love your enemies, do good to those who persecute you..." are all about.

I am part of a church community that is a "peace church".

Personally, I have transitioned from a "just war" position to a "peace" position. Among many other considerations, this scenario helped me to see things differently:

Imagine that as a Christian soldier, you have a brief moment when you consider the shot you're about to take. And this thought runs through your head: "There are only two kinds of people in this world. There are God's children who have put their faith in Jesus and already come into His kingdom. And there are those who have not yet believed. If my 'target' is the second kind of person, then my Christian responsibility to that person is to share the gospel of Christ with him/her. However, if the person is a fellow believer, then we are siblings in Christ and my Christian responsibility is to recognize that bond and love him/her. So I'd make a lousy soldier, because either way I'd put down my weapons and approach my 'enemy' to teach or embrace him, and of course I'd get shot in the process!

And then that reminds me of how easy it is to misunderstand each other when the context is war! There's no thought of relationships crossing enemy lines. Within that context, all that matters is which side you're on, and protecting yourself and your buddies by destroying the enemy.

(Edited to say that I'm talking theoretically here, and don't mean to compare present disagreements and hostilities to war ... but I love to see when love and grace transcend the differences. And I've seen that on both boards ... and right here and now, where Liz' post is a bridging rather than a dividing one.)

Edited March 23, 2013 by Paloma

[Jersey Girl]

I have to agree with Jersey Girl about the tremendous value of relationships.

I've pondered the (to me) unthinkable damage that occurs in civil war, where brother fights against brother, or in any situation where 'causes' or 'doctrinaire differences' separate people who are or should otherwise be 'family'.

Can or should anything ever trump the priority of relationships?

To me, that's what Jesus' words about "love your enemies, do good to those who persecute you..." are all about.

I am part of a church community that is a "peace church".

Personally, I have transitioned from a "just war" position to a "peace" position. Among many other considerations, this scenario helped me to see things differently:

Imagine that as a Christian soldier, you have a brief moment when you consider the shot you're about to take. And this thought runs through your head: "There are only two kinds of people in this world. There are God's children who have put their faith in Jesus and already come into His kingdom. And there are those who have not yet believed. If my 'target' is the second kind of person, then my Christian responsibility to that person is to share the gospel of Christ with him/her. However, if the person is a fellow believer, then we are siblings in Christ and my Christian responsibility is to recognize that bond and love him/her. So I'd make a lousy soldier, because either way I'd put down my weapons and approach my 'enemy' to teach or embrace him, and of course I'd get shot in the process!

And then that reminds me of how easy it is to misunderstand each other when the context is war! There's no thought of relationships crossing enemy lines. Within that context, all that matters is which side you're on, and protecting yourself and your buddies by destroying the enemy.

(Edited to say that I'm talking theoretically here, and don't mean to compare present disagreements and hostilities to war ... but I love to see when love and grace transcend the differences. And I've seen that on both boards ... and right here and now, where Liz' post is a bridging rather than a dividing one.)

Well, Paloma, I am not particularly know for peace making on the boards, more often than not I am critical of individual posters regardless of what "side" they are on.

I do know an exercise in futility when I see one.

And as I indicated, I've seen long standing e-friendships damaged beyond repair over alliances and agendas.

That's pretty sad.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Here we get to the heart of the matter: You believe Kish is Scratch and you this fuels your hatred.

"Hatred", it is sad to think you can know the heart of another, I think the best thing is too not let his legend grow outside the malcontents with whom he posts. Anytime MD is discussed it broadens their following and makes more money for the man who has sold his birthright for a "mess of potage".

[Paloma]

Well, Paloma, I am not particularly know for peace making on the boards, more often than not I am critical of individual posters regardless of what "side" they are on.

I do know an exercise in futility when I see one.

And as I indicated, I've seen long standing e-friendships damaged beyond repair over alliances and agendas.

That's pretty sad.

Jersey Girl, I agree that the loss of friendships, online or not, is sad! Very!!

It seems that you don't take sides, and I see that as a plus!

Challenging others, especially online, is not usually my cup of tea (although I've had to do lots of confronting IRL due to responsibilities that go with positions I've held).

We need all kinds of personalities, and if you're more outspoken than some, then good for you. From what I've read of your posts, I think you're fair and unbiased.

[Avatar4321]

As some of you are probably aware, Mr. Deity (the YouTube guy) recently produced an episode that lampooned the "beliefs" of the LDS Church.

Among some of the items Mr. Deity claims to have been taught as a Mormon included the standard fare. We'll have our own planet, Mormons are racist ..... you have heard it all before.

But what is most disgusting about this whole affair is how Kishkumen has responded. As expected, his response was full of nastiness, hatred, and irrational anger.

Can you believe that? Awful. Just really really disgusting. How a man who claims to be well-educated can behave in such a manner is beyond me.

I find it quite wrong to pretend any of that stuff comes from "odd material from a Smith sermon" which is total nonsense when most of it comes from anti-mormons deliberately misrepresenting stuff or making things up.

Are we supposed to somehow not think im a liar because his lies dressed up in more flattering language for once in his life?

[escott3564]

Since I am not allowed to start a new thread yet, I will just post this here and the Mods can split it out if they want to.

Dan and I have both been seriously threatened by a poster by the name of Lance Peters. He has indicated that he has posted on this board as well so I want everyone to be aware of him.

I emailed Juliann who I believe is traveling at the moment and requested that this poster be banned from MDDB.

Internet stalking is serious business and I would hate to see anyone here to through what Dan and I have gone through.

Sorry for the derail, but I felt this was important.

[wenglund]

Since I am not allowed to start a new thread yet, I will just post this here and the Mods can split it out if they want to.

Dan and I have both been seriously threatened by a poster by the name of Lance Peters. He has indicated that he has posted on this board as well so I want everyone to be aware of him.

I emailed Juliann who I believe is traveling at the moment and requested that this poster be banned from MDDB.

Internet stalking is serious business and I would hate to see anyone here to through what Dan and I have gone through.

Sorry for the derail, but I felt this was important.

Is Lance Peters his real name?

How does one go about inspiring that level of devotion in him?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[escott3564]

Is Lance Peters his real name?

How does one go about inspiring that level of devotion in him?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I very much doubt that Lance Peters is his real name. My strong hunch is that he is the same person who sneaked a camera into the temple and posted those temple videos on YouTube.

I am sure that with some sleuthing, the Mods here and at MDB could find out his true identity. I have spoken with Dan via email, and our plan is to each file restraining orders against him, even if he resides in different states from each of us. I think that a strong message needs to be sent that it does not pay to troll message boards and threaten people IRL.

[wenglund]

I very much doubt that Lance Peters is his real name. My strong hunch is that he is the same person who sneaked a camera into the temple and posted those temple videos on YouTube.

I am sure that with some sleuthing, the Mods here and at MDB could find out his true identity. I have spoken with Dan via email, and our plan is to each file restraining orders against him, even if he resides in different states from each of us. I think that a strong message needs to be sent that it does not pay to troll message boards and threaten people IRL.

Are you talking about Mike Norman (normannoah) of the Bountiful/Layton area?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

I emailed Juliann who I believe is traveling at the moment and requested that this poster be banned from MDDB.

Just FYI, Juliann is not a moderator and has not been involved in the board's functioning for a long time, I believe. All you have to do is a report on his post if he's posted. If not, write to Nemesis or any of the other mods (if they have not already seen this...they don't read every thread on their own in my experience).

PS: you've hit 25 posts now...

Edited March 24, 2013 by calmoriah

[escott3564]

Just FYI, Juliann is not a moderator and has not been involved in the board's functioning for a long time, I believe. All you have to do is a report on his post if he's posted. If not, write to Nemesis or any of the other mods (if they have not already seen this...they don't read every thread on their own in my experience).

PS: you've hit 25 posts now...

Thanks, Cal!

I PM'd Nemesis as well.

[Calm]

Thanks, Cal!

I PM'd Nemesis as well.

You can also 'report' your own post with the request to get their attention. I think (from experience) that just may send up a 'brighter flare' than a PM does.

PS: After reading your second post, I went ahead and 'reported' your post for you so you don't need to do it this time around.

Edited March 24, 2013 by calmoriah

[MorningStar]

I report myself when I've gotten out of control.

[TAO]

I report myself when I've gotten out of control.

Good piece of advice! I should use it on myself sometime.

Edited March 25, 2013 by TAO

[Wiki Wonka]

I very much doubt that Lance Peters is his real name. My strong hunch is that he is the same person who sneaked a camera into the temple and posted those temple videos on YouTube.

My recollection is that when he introduced himself on MormonDiscussions, that he said that "Lance Peters" was the name of a porn star. So, no, that would not be his real name.

I also don't think that he is "NewNameNoah." As I recall, NNN's identity is known, and he hasn't tried to hide it (although I can't recall what it is).

WW

Edited March 25, 2013 by Wiki Wonka