Continued Damage Control!!

[_Themis]

Had tales of his (perhaps temporary) apostasy never appeared, we would probably be saying about as many nice things about him as we typically say about his frequent co-author, the late Dr. Milton R. Hunter, a member of the Seventy whom we seldom if ever even mention. Ferguson and Hunter meant well, and they did some useful things, but they belong to a much earlier, much more naïve, and much less sophisticated stage of the LDS study of the history and archaeology relevant to Book of Mormon claims. Few if any people read them any more.

The difference is that he tended to avoid apologia and go with the evidence.

Thomas Stewart Ferguson, though, has been and continues to be exploited as a weapon against Latter-day Saint faith. I'm aware of no obligation on our part to be silent in the face of that fact.

Sure he concluded the church was not true, and it was not only based on the Book of Mormon. He may not have been honest enough to go public, but he was honest enough with himself.

[_Daniel Peterson]

The difference is that he tended to avoid apologia and go with the evidence.

That he really just "went with the evidence" is, in my judgment, open to serious dispute. And, in fact, I've disputed it. As have others, including John Gee and John Sorenson, in his addendum at the end of another John Gee essay.

[_Themis]

The difference is that he tended to avoid apologia and go with the evidence.

That he really just "went with the evidence" is, in my judgment, open to serious dispute. And, in fact, I've disputed it. As have others, including John Gee and John Sorenson, in his addendum at the end of another John Gee essay.

Of course you have disputed it. :)

[_Daniel Peterson]

Of course you have disputed it. :)

And, of course, you dispute my disputation.

We disagree.

Amazing.

[_Themis]

Amazing.

Isn't it though. :)

[_Kevin Graham]

Kevin Graham routinely labels everybody with whom he disagrees a crackpot, a liar, an idiot, a coward, and/or a moron.

I don't.

Please illustrate just a single example, where I have called you a crackpot, a liar, an idiot, a coward, and/or a moron.

While you're at it, go ahead and provide examples where I have said this of any number of people with whom I have disagreed: David Bokoy, Tarski, EA, Dr. Shades, Trevor, etc...

Care to qualify your remarks Dan?

The fact is you do routinely attack critics, as evidenced by your lame attempts to attack Ferguson and Robert Ritner. You do this not because you simply disagree with them, but because that is preferred apologetic approach when the arguments cannot be addressed.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Kevin Graham routinely labels everybody with whom he disagrees a crackpot, a liar, an idiot, a coward, and/or a moron.

I don't.

Please illustrate just a single example, where I have called you a crackpot, a liar, an idiot, a coward, and/or a moron.

While you're at it, go ahead and provide examples where I have said this of any number of people with whom I have disagreed: David Bokoy, Tarski, EA, Dr. Shades, Trevor, etc...

Care to qualify your remarks Dan?

Sure. Kevin Graham routinely labels most believing Latter-day Saints with whom he disagrees as crackpots, liars, idiots, cowards, and/or morons. There are a few believing Latter-day Saints, however, to whom he has not yet applied any of these labels, which are, otherwise, a hallmark of his often remarkably unpleasant online persona.

The fact is you do routinely attack critics, as evidenced by your lame attempts to attack Ferguson and Robert Ritner. You do this not because you simply disagree with them, but because that is preferred apologetic approach when the arguments cannot be addressed.

I deny each and every part of the statement above, but will not argue it (nor anything else, for that matter) with you.

[_Kevin Graham]

Sure. Kevin Graham routinely labels most believing Latter-day Saints with whom he disagrees as crackpots, liars, idiots, cowards, and/or morons. There are a few believing Latter-day Saints, however, to whom he has not yet applied any of these labels, which are, otherwise, a hallmark of his often remarkably unpleasant online persona.

You heard it here first folks. Dan Peterson claims to know the extent of disagreement with every Mormon I have argued with. Otherwise, he'd never have the audacity to assert with confidence that the relatively few people I've properly identified as idiots, represent the majority of Mormons I've encountered.

Dan, you need to fire your SMCC informant. Either that or pay better attention to what actually goes on.

I deny each and every part of the statement above, but will not argue it (nor anything else, for that matter) with you.

Of course not. Because you can't.

And your failed attempt to demean me as someone who name-calls any Mormon with whom I disagree, is noted. This just goes to prove my point that you do in fact attack those who you cannot debate successfully.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I withdraw, repudiate, and take back my suggestion that Kevin Graham, a gentle soul widely known for his charitable demeanor on line, is prone to label believing LDS scholars and believing LDS posters crackpots, liars, idiots, cowards, and morons.

I do not have, at my fingertips, precise statistical data regarding the frequency of his use of such terms or the number of those to whom he has applied such lovingly intended epithets -- perhaps, as I reflect on the matter, he never actually has -- and have plainly sought disingenuously to distract attention from the many evidences of his generally sweet (if anything, cloying) message board personality.

Mea culpa. Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa.