The New Message Board Thread On The MA&D Board

[_wenglund]

I think it's as close to an admission of defeat as we've ever heard from FAIR. I wonder if the cabal sat around the table at Chuck-A-Rama one day and agreed that they couldn't stand a dialog with knowledgable people any more.

Lol... I think this maneuver on the part of FAIR is rightly seen as a form of damage control. It's not so much that they can't handle dialogue with knowledgeable people, it's that they want to stack the deck entirely in their favor. Sort of like what goes on with the peer review process at FARMS Review.

Ironically, it is not the "knowledgeable" people who tend to frequent relatively obscure message boards and uncharitably pronounce rash judgements like this.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_MormonMendacity]

Govenor Boggs didn't exactly use the phrase "pull off the shelves" in terms of Mormonism, but he did use the term: "Extermination". Intolerance and prejudice by any other name smells just as bad.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Who started it? I dunno...but it sounds to me like both sides have a share in the intolerance and prejudice blame game.

And that mob that comes on us to disturb us, it shall be between us and them a war of extermination; for we will follow them until the last drop of their blood is spilled; or else they will have to exterminate us, for we will carry the seat of war to their own houses and their own families, and one party or the other shall be utterly destroyed. (4th of July speech of 1838. Comprehensive History of the Church, vol. 1, page 441)(Emphasis added.)

It was a lawless time and neither side could be controlled to keep the peace.

[_Runtu]

That is similar to how the anti-Semites view the Jews--as a defective product. Perhaps they may fallaciously reason, like you, by assuming that the existence of the Anti Defamation League is evidence in support of their view.

Govenor Boggs didn't exactly use the phrase "pull off the shelves" in terms of Mormonism, but he did use the term: "Extermination". Intolerance and prejudice by any other name smells just as bad.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Back to the anti-semitism canard, I see. Do you have any idea why Boggs issued the extermination order? It wasn't intolerance and prejudice. The Mormons attacked the state militia at Crooked River and thus were in a state of armed rebellion. The extermination order is quite understandable in that light. I think Boggs overreacted, obviously, but it was never about intolerance and prejudice, Wade.

[_harmony]

Back to the anti-semitism canard, I see. Do you have any idea why Boggs issued the extermination order? It wasn't intolerance and prejudice. The Mormons attacked the state militia at Crooked River and thus were in a state of armed rebellion. The extermination order is quite understandable in that light. I think Boggs overreacted, obviously, but it was never about intolerance and prejudice, Wade.

Wade isn't about to let a little thing like historical fact get in the way of a good faith promoting story, runtu. Sheesh. Surely you know this. Where's your sense of "helpful ala Packer" truth?

[_wenglund]

That is similar to how the anti-Semites view the Jews--as a defective product. Perhaps they may fallaciously reason, like you, by assuming that the existence of the Anti Defamation League is evidence in support of their view.

Govenor Boggs didn't exactly use the phrase "pull off the shelves" in terms of Mormonism, but he did use the term: "Extermination". Intolerance and prejudice by any other name smells just as bad.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Back to the anti-semitism canard, I see. Do you have any idea why Boggs issued the extermination order? It wasn't intolerance and prejudice. The Mormons attacked the state militia at Crooked River and thus were in a state of armed rebellion. The extermination order is quite understandable in that light. I think Boggs overreacted, obviously, but it was never about intolerance and prejudice, Wade.

That is certainly one self-serving and overly narrow interpretation of history, if not a way to miss my point. And, were I to "think" like many anti's do, I might even call it 'white washed".

But, I won't. I will just strike it up to a difference of opinion, and given the counterproductivity of our previous exchanges here, leave it at that. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

That is ceraintly one self-serving and overly narrow interpretation of history, if not a way to miss my point. And, were I to "think" like many anti's do, I might even call it 'white washed".

But, I won't. I will just strike it up to a difference of opinion, and given the counterproductivity of our previous exchanges here, leave it at that. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Whitewashed? Wade, here's what happened. Feel free to disagree.

The Mormons had been harassed by their neighbors, culminating in a brawl on election day as some Mormons were prevented from voting. Tensions ran high, and mobs began to form. The Mormons got word that a mob was approaching, hell-bent on destruction, so the Mormons gathered arms and attacked. Unfortunately, it wasn't a mob but a unit of the state militia. In the battle, people on both sides lost their lives, including David W. Patten. It was the report of the attack that led to Boggs' extermination order.

Clearly, he reacted hastily in the midst of a bad situation, and history has been an unkind judge to Boggs, and rightly so. You don't just go and order the extermination of folks, no matter the situation. Had he taken a deep breath and investigated the matter, a lot of bloodshed could have been avoided.

The extermination order and the Haun's Mill Massacre are indeed black spots on American history. But discussing the facts does not constitute a self-serving whitewash.

You know what's funny? A couple of years ago on FAIR, a guy who went by "Nepheye" argued with me about the extermination order and the events leading up to it. I railed on him for "excusing the extermination order" and being one-sided in his account. But then I read the primary sources, and Nepheye was right. I was wrong. And now, two years later, I'm being told that I'm an anti with a narrow interpretation of history. So ironic.

[_MormonMendacity]

I think it's as close to an admission of defeat as we've ever heard from FAIR. I wonder if the cabal sat around the table at Chuck-A-Rama one day and agreed that they couldn't stand a dialog with knowledgable people any more.

Lol... I think this maneuver on the part of FAIR is rightly seen as a form of damage control. It's not so much that they can't handle dialogue with knowledgeable people, it's that they want to stack the deck entirely in their favor. Sort of like what goes on with the peer review process at FARMS Review.

Ironically, it is not the "knowledgeable" people who tend to frequent relatively obscure message boards and uncharitably pronounce rash judgements like this.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade. Are you nine? Your response amounted to nothing more than "I'm rubber and you're glue."

Very pursuasive argument.

[_MormonMendacity]

That is certainly one self-serving and overly narrow interpretation of history, if not a way to miss my point. And, were I to "think" like many anti's do, I might even call it 'white washed".

But, I won't. I will just strike it up to a difference of opinion, and given the counterproductivity of our previous exchanges here, leave it at that. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Couched insults -- nice.

"I would call you a lying motherf****, but I have way too much respect for you to do that."

[_OUT OF MY MISERY]

I think it's as close to an admission of defeat as we've ever heard from FAIR. I wonder if the cabal sat around the table at Chuck-A-Rama one day and agreed that they couldn't stand a dialog with knowledgable people any more.

Lol... I think this maneuver on the part of FAIR is rightly seen as a form of damage control. It's not so much that they can't handle dialogue with knowledgeable people, it's that they want to stack the deck entirely in their favor. Sort of like what goes on with the peer review process at FARMS Review.

Yes stack the deck much like they do in VEGAS sounds like a good thing to do...there will only be certain peole that will allowed on that site they have as much said that.....well we can find a to cheat and unstack the deck just like they do inVEGAS

[_grayskull]

FAIR still has as much of a message board now as it did a week ago. Perhaps even more so. FAIR, through its current message board, is still claiming that its apologists speak the unified will and mind of the Brethren and of God himself. The positioning of the disclaimer has merely been moved. The denial is as believable as the claim that when the church funds a mall that sells alcohol from its investments which exist because of tithing, that this is different than using actual tithing funds. Accounting differences are only meaningful to accountants and apologists. Consider two scenarios:

1)

An LDS with questions stumbles accross FAIR and this site previous to the changes:

http://www.fairlds.org/message.html

Before, he would be directed to a board with a flashing banner declaring the LDS church has no doctrine and that the views expressed represented the participants. The seeker would then encounter DCP, Pahoran, Juliann, Brant, and others who put their work up on FAIR.

2)An LDS with questions stumbles accross the new page. A statement of accounting is made - as if a seeker with buring questions about Eternal Life cares who writes the checks and has the greatest admin privilages. A disclaimer is given, and a link provided to a board with a new name (and no disclaimer!). Note however, that the link "fairboards.org" still works. The seeker then encounters DCP, Pahoran, Juliann, Brant, and others who put their work up on FAIR.

Are we really to believe the the seeker will be any less convinced in scenario two that she is being treated to the views and opinions of FAIR than in scenario one?